Oregon.  Legislative  assembly,  1909, 

Proceedings  of  the  fiftieth  anniver- 
sary of  the  admission  of  the  state  of 
Oregon  to  the  union, 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
AT   LOS  ANGELES 


PROCEEDINGS 


of  the 


Fiftieth  Anniversary  of  the  Admission 

of  the  State  of  Oregon 

to  the  Union 


Held  Under  the  Auspices  of  the  Twenty-fifth  Biennial 

Session  of  the  Legislative  Assembly  and  the 

Oregon  Historical  Society 


at  the 


CAPITOL,  SALEM 


Monday,  February  15,  1909 


SALEM.  OREGON 

W.  3.  DUNIWAY,  STATE  PRINTER 

1909 


FRED  LOCKLEY 

RARE  WESTERN  BOOKS 

4227  S.  E.  Stark  St. 
PORTLAND.  ORE. 


PROCEEDINGS 


of  the 


Fiftieth  Anniversary  of  the  Admission 

of  the  State  of  Oregon 

to  the  Union 


Held  Under  the  Auspices  of  the  Twenty-fifth  Biennial 

Session  of  the  Legislative  Assembly  and  the 

Oregon  Historical  Society 


at  the 


CAPITOL,  SALEM 


Monday,  February  15,  1909 


SALEM.  OREGON 

W.  S.  DUNIWAY.  STATE  PRINTER 

1909 


1-  <£  I  <o 


Surviving  Members  of  the  Constitutional  Convention  Held  in 
Salem,  Augus!  17  to  September  18,  1857. 


Hon.  GEORGE  H.  WILLIAMS,  Portland *1853 

Hon.  LAFAYETTE  GROVER,  Portland        -  ....  *1850 

Hon.  WILLIAM  H.  PACKWOOD,  Baker  City       ....  *1849 

*Date  of  arrival  in   Oregon. 


260259 


COMMITTEE  OF  ARRANGEMENTS. 


ON   BEHALF  OF  THE  SENATE. 

HON.  M.  A.  MILLER,  Linn  County. 

HON.  W.  C.  CHASE,  Coos  and  Curry  Counties. 

ON  BEHALF  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES. 

HON.  J.  L.  CARTER,  Hood  River  County. 
DR.  L.  M.  DAVIS,  Multnomah  County. 
HON.  L.  E.  BEAN,  Lane  County. 

ON  BEHALF  OF  THE  OREGON  HISTORICAL  SOCIETY. 

FREDERICK  V.  HOLMAN,  President,  Portland. 
GEORGE  H.  HIMES,  Assistant  Secretary,  Portland. 


INTRODUCTORY. 


As  the  Legislature  of  1907  made  no  provision  for  observing 
the  Semi-Centennial  of  the  Statehood  of  Oregon,  and  as  the 
Legislature  of  1909  would  not  convene  until  January  llth, 
on  June  26th,  1908,  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Oregon 
Historical  Society  called  a  special  meeting  for  July  1st,  "To 
consider  and  take  action  on  celebrating  the  Fiftieth  Anni- 
versary of  the  Admission  of  Oregon  as  a  State  into  the 
Union." 

At  this  meeting  Frederick  V.  Holman,  President  of  the 
Historical  Society,  was  appointed  a  committee  of  one  to 
secure  a  speaker  for  that  occasion.  He  performed  that  duty 
by  corresponding  with  a  number  of  distinguished  gentlemen 
in  different  portions  of  the  states  east  of  the  Rocky  Moun- 
tains, and  at  length,  about  the  first  of  December,  secured  the 
consent  of  Hon.  Frederick  N.  Judson,  LL.  D.,  an  eminent 
lawyer  of  St.  Louis,  Mo.,  to  prepare  the  anniversary  address. 
Meanwhile  President  Holman  laid  the  matter  of  this  cele- 
bration before  Governor  George  E.  Chamberlain,  briefly  out- 
lining the  purposes  of  the  Society  in  thus  taking  the  initiative 
in  this  matter,  and  also  apprised  him  of  what  had  been  done. 
The  Governor  heartily  approved  the  action  of  the  Society 
in  the  premises,  and  agreed  to  do  what  he  could  in  securing 
the  co-operation  of  the  Legislature  in  the  proposed  celebration. 

The  Legislature  convened  in  its  Twenty-fifth  Biennial  Ses- 
sion on  Monday,  January  11,  1909,  whereupon  House  Joint 
Resolution  No.  1  was  introduced  by  Hon.  C.  N.  McArthur, 
Speaker  of  the  House,  as  follows : 

HOUSE  JOINT  RESOLUTION   NO.   1. 

Whereas,  the  fiftieth  anniversary  of  the  admission  of  Oregon 
to  the  Union  occurs  on  the  14th  day  of  February,  1909,  and 

Whereas,  the  appropriate  observance  of  such  anniversary  is 
conductive  to  creating  and  upbuilding  a  true  commonwealth 
spirit,  fostering  a  zealous  study  of  its  institutions  by  its 
people,  and  promoting  patriotism;  therefore, 

Be  it  resolved  by  the  Legislative  Assembly  of  the  State  of 

Oregon : 

That  the  State  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  meet  in 
joint  assembly  on  the  15th  day  of  February,  at  the  hour  of 

5 


4  P.  M.,  for  the  purpose  of  holding  appropriate  exercises  com- 
memorating the  said  fiftieth  anniversary  of  the  admission  of 
Oregon  to  the  Union;  and 

Be  it  further  resolved,  that  the  members  of  the  Oregon  His- 
torical Society  and  residents  of  the  State  generally,  be  invited 
to  attend  and  participate  in  said  exercises;  and 

Be  it  further  resolved,  that  a  committee  of  three  on  the  part 
of  the  House  and  two  on  the  part  of  the  Senate  be  appointed  to 
arrange  the  details  for  said  exercises. 

Filed  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State  February  25, 1909. 

This  resolution  was  adopted  by  the  House  on  January  22d, 
in  compliance  with  which  Speaker  McArthur  appointed  Repre- 
sentatives J.  L.  Carter,  of  Hood  River,  L.  M.  Davis,  of  Mult- 
nomah,  and  Louis  E.  Bean,  of  Lane,  as  a  committee  on 
celebration  on  the  part  of  the  House. 

This  resolution  was  adopted  by  the  Senate  on  January  22d, 
pursuant  to  which  President  Jay  Bowerman  appointed  Sena- 
tors M.  A.  Miller,  of  Linn  County,  and  W.  A.  Chase,  of  Coos 
and  Curry  counties,  as  a  committee  on  behalf  of  the  Senate 
to  co-operate  with  the  House  committee. 

A  meeting  of  the  joint  committees  of  both  houses,  together 
with  the  committee  from  the  Oregon  Historical  Society,  was 
called  by  Representative  Carter,  chairman  of  the  House  com- 
mittee, for  Monday  evening,  January  25th,  at  the  Capitol. 
The  three  committees  met  at  8  o'clock  P.  M.  in  the  office  of 
Hon.  J.  C.  Moreland,  Clerk  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and  organ- 
ized by  electing  Senator  Miller  chairman  and  Representative 
Chase  secretary. 

The  chairman  called  upon  President  Holman,  of  the  Ore- 
gon Historical  Society,  to  state  what  had  been  done  by  him 
as  chairman  of  the  committee  of  that  body,  and  was  informed 
that  Hon.  Frederick  N.  Judson,  a  distinguished  lawyer  of 
St.  Louis,  had  been  secured  to  deliver  the  principal  address. 

A  programme  of  exercises  was  then  prepared  as  follows: 

Music  -        -        ...     MCELROY'S    BAND 

Calling  to  order  and  Introduction  of  the  President  of  the  day,   Hon.  Jay 

Bowerman,  President  of  the  Senate  -        By  Hon.  M.  A.  MILLER 

Chairman  of  the  Senate  Committee  of  Arrangements 
Prayer  Rev.  w.   R    BISHOP 

Portland 

Address  of  Welcome      -        -  Gov.  GEORGE  E.  CHAMBERLAIN 

FREDERICK    V.    HOLMAN 

Portland,    President    Oregon    Historical    Society 

Address  to  Oregon  Pioneers  Hon.  GEORGE  H.  WILLIAMS 

TLT,    .  Portland 

MCELROY'S    BAND 

Anniversary  Address    -        -  Hon.  FREDERICK  N.  JUDSON,  LL.  D. 

xr,,_i  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

MCELROY'S    BAND 

6 


As  February  14th,  the  Anniversary  Day,  came  on  Sunday, 
it  was  decided  that  the  commemorative  exercises  should  be 
held  on  the  day  following,  February  15th. 

Representative  Davis  and  George  H.  Himes,  a  member  of 
the  committee  of  the  Oregon  Historical  Society,  were  appointed 
a  committee  on  invitations,  and  the  following  form  was  sub- 
mitted and  adopted,  with  instructions  that  it  be  an  engraved 
invitation : 

The  Legislative  Assembly 

State  of  Oregon 

and  the 

Oregon  Historical  Society 
cordially  invite  you  to  attend  the  Celebration 

of  the 

Fiftieth  Anniversary 
of  the  Admission  of  Oregon  to  the  Union 

to  be  held  in  the  Capitol,   Salem 
•  on  Monday,  February  the  fifteenth 

One  thousand  nine  hundred  and  nine 
at  three  o'clock 

M.  A.  Miller 
Chairman  Senate  Committee  of  Arrangements 

J.  L.   Carter 
Chairman  House  Committee  of  Arrangements 

Frederick  V.  Hoi  man 
President  Oregon  Historical  Society 

Mr.  Himes  was  appointed  a  committee  of  one  to  superin- 
tend the  engraving  of  the  invitations,  and  to  send  out  the 
same.  Nine  hundred  and  fifty  were  printed  and  they  were 
mailed  as  follows: 

President  and  Vice-President  of  the  United  States. 

President  and  Vice-President  elect. 

Members  of  the  Cabinet. 

Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 

Governors  of  the  United  States. 

Surviving  members  of  the  Constitutional  Convention. 

Surviving  members  of  the  first  State  Legislature. 

Ex-State  officials  of  Oregon  now  living. 

Present  State  officials. 

Pioneers,  Indian  war  veterans  and  other  citizens. 

Principal  historical  societies  of  the  United  States. 

7 


FIFTIETH  ANNIVERSARY  OF  THE  STATEHOOD 

OF  OREGON. 


On  Monday,  February  15,  1909,  at  3  o'clock  P.  M.,  the  House 
of  Representatives  was  adjourned  by  Speaker  McArthur,  who 
announced  that  the  hour  had  arrived  to  begin  the  ceremonies 
relating  to  the  celebration  of  the  Fiftieth  Anniversary  of 
Statehood,  and  introduced  Hon.  M.  A.  Miller,  Senator  from 
Linn  County,  chairman  of  the  Senate  committee  on  the  cele- 
bration, as  the  presiding  officer  upon  this  occasion. 

Upon  ascending  the  rostrum  and  calling  the  large  assemblage 
to  order,  Senator  Miller  said: 

"We  will  now  be  led  in  prayer  by  Rev.  William  R.  Bishop,  of  Port- 
land, an  honored  pioneer  minister  of  Oregon.  Please  stand." 

The  invocation  was  offered  by  Rev.  William  R.  Bishop, 
of  Portland,  a  pioneer  of  1852,  as  follows: 

God  of  all  grace,  mercy,  truth  and  love,  we  gather  here  today  with 
grateful  hearts  to  mingle  together  in  celebration  of  the  fiftieth  anni- 
versary of  the  admission  of  the  commonwealth  of  our  beloved  Oregon 
into  the  great  sisterhood  of  States — the  United  States  of  America.  And 
in  the  opening  of  these  ceremonies  we  desire,  first  of  all,  to  render 
to  Thee  our  grateful  thanks  that  we  live,  and  that  we  live  where  we  live. 
We  thank  Thee  for  the  memory  that  many  of  Thy  servants,  gathered 
here  today,  still  hold  in  mind  the  stirring  events  of  fifty  years  ago  today. 
We  thank  Thee  that  so  many  of  the  men,  and  so  many  of  the  women, 
of  those  stirring  times,  have,  in  the  order  of  Thy  gentle  Providence, 
lived  on  to  hear  and  to  see  so  full  a  realization  of  the  hopes  and 
aspirations  of  that  noble  generation  upon  whose  labors  the  active  gen- 
eration of  this  day  are  now  entered.  And  now,  Lord,  we  would  here 
today,  on  this  appropriate  occasion,  which  calls  us  together,  make 
mention  of  our  gratitude  to  Thee  for  the  blessings  of  home  and  country, 
which  come  to  the  generation  here  assembled,  through  the  labors  and 
toils  of  the  men  and  women  who  have  finished  their  course  and  gone 
to  their  rest. 

O,  God,  most  merciful,  the  memory  of  these  men,  and  of  these 
women,  who  thus  labored  and  thus  toiled,  is  as  ointment  most  precious; 
and,  Lord,  we  would  pray  that  the  alabaster  flask  of  this  precious 
ointment  of  the  memory  of  the  men  and  women  of  the  past  might  be 
broken  here  today  in  the  midst  of  this  people  gathered  here  in  the 
Capitol  building  of  our  commonwealth.  And  Lord,  we  would  pray  that 


the  odor  going  out  from  that  ointment  of  memory  of  the  past  and 
hopes  of  the  future,  may  rest  upon  all  this  people,  and  that  every 
heart  may  be  moved  with  gratitude  and  be  inspired  with  resolution 
for  the.  good  and  right.  And  we  most  earnestly  beseech  Thee  that 
this  odor  of  the  past,  and  of  all  the  good  that  has  come  down  to  us 
from  the  toils  and  labors  of  the  past,  may  rest  upon  all  our  State 
officers,  upon  the  Governor  and  those  associated  with  him  in  the  admin- 
istration of  the  laws  of  our  commonwealth,  and  that,  through  them, 
our  laws  may  be  administered  in  the  fear  of  God. 

We  are  told  by  inspiration,  0,  most  merciful  Father,  we  are  told 
by  inspiration,  that  the  hearts  of  princes  are  in  Thy  hands;  and  we 
would,  therefore,  pray  earnestly  that  these  Thy  servants,  the  members 
of  the  Senate  and  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  now  assembled 
for  active  duty,  may  be  moved  by  the  sweet  odors  coming  from  the 
memory  of  the  day  we  celebrate — February  14,  1859.  And  we  would 
pray  that  the  Senate  chamber  and  the  hall  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives might  be  filled  with  the  odors  now  coming  up  through  the  memory 
of  that  day,  and  that  every  member  of  the  entire  legislative  body  may 
be  moved  by  a  sense  of  duty  both  to  the  past  and  to  the  present  as  well. 

And  now  at  the  close  we  would  commend  to  Thy  Fatherly  grace, 
Thy  Fatherly  blessing  and  benediction,  this,  the  present  generation,  the 
children  and  grandchildren  of  the  men  and  women  yet  living,  most 
of  whom  have  counted  three  score  and  ten  years,  and  many  of  them 
four  score  years. 

God  of  love,  keep  the  men  and  women  of  this  generation  in  Thy 
fear,  so  that  they  may  do  even  more  and  better  work  than  their 
predecessors,  and  so  that  our  whole  country,  the  United  States  of 
America,  may  continue  to  bless  the  world,  and  to  bless,  as  she  now 
does,  all  nations  of  the  earth;  and  that  she  may  continue  to  be  one 
undivided  country  until  the  voice  of  the  Son  of  God  shall  be  heard 
descending  in  the  clouds.  We  ask  all  in  His  name,  who  taught  us 
to  say,  when  we  pray: 

"Our  Father  which  art  in  heaven,  hallowed  be  Thy  name.  Thy 
kingdom  come.  Thy  will  be  done  in  earth  as  it  is  in  heaven.  Give 
us  this  day  our  daily  bread.  And  forgive  us  our  debts,  as  we  forgive 
our  debtors.  And  lead  us  not  into  temptation;  but  deliver  us  from  evil: 
For  Thine  is  the  kingdom,  and  the  power,  and  the  glory,  forever.  Amen." 

After  the  invocation  Senator  Miller  made  a  brief  intro- 
ductory address,  as  follows: 

PRESIDENT    MILLER'S    INTRODUCTORY    ADDRESS. 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen: 

We  have  assembled  here  today  to  celebrate  this,  the  fiftieth  anni- 
versary of  the  birth  of  Oregon  as  a  State.  It  is  an  occasion  of  which 
we  may  well  be  proud  and  one  in  which  we  can  all  join  in  one  grand 
psean  for  the  splendid  advancement  that  our  State  has  made. 

We  have  met  to  rejoice  with  laughing  children,  fair  women  and 
brave  men,  and  to  bless  the  day  which  has  given  us  a  nation  such  as 
never  came  before  to  mark  the  tide  of  time,  which,  previous  to  its 
birth  existed  only  in  the  dreamy  imaginations  of  the  poet  or  the  philoso- 
pher, but  stands  forth  today  a  living,  breathing  reality.  This,  indeed, 
is  the  anniversary  of  a  great  undertaking  and  determination. 

10 


Sixty  years  ago  or  more,  a  small  band  of  great  and  good  men  and 
women,  many  of  whom  have  passed  in  the  pale  realms  of  shade  and 
taken  up  their  abode  in  a  far  better  land,  have  erected  here  a  monument 
of  civil  and  religious  liberty  which  shall  last  till  the  end  of  time. 
The  noble  pioneers  who  settled  this  country  gave  an  exhibition  of  heroic 
courage  seldom  witnessed  in  any  age  or  any  country,  and  though  their 
forms  may  pass  off  the  stage  of  human  action,  the  records  of  their 
greatness  can  never  perish.  Great  principles  will  live  and  live  forever, 
though  their  authors  may  be  numbered  with  the  dead.  If  the  pages 
of  written  history  were  to  be  destroyed  and  every  means  of  its  repro- 
duction, the  memories  of  the  struggles  of  the  pioneers  of  Oregon  would 
not  soon  be  forgotten  and  drop  from  the  minds  of  the  people,  but  it 
would  be  transmitted  and  handed  down  from  the  sons  and  daughters 
of  the  pioneers  from  generation  to  generation,  from  age  to  age,  as  long 
as  an  intelligent  American  citizen  should  be  left  on  the  face  of  the  earth. 
Then  it  is  not  strange  that  we  should  meet  today  to  celebrate  the  great 
events  and  bring  up  the  memories  of  brave  men. 

Men  may  die  as  the  leaves  of  autumn  but  the  principles  underlying 
liberty  and  self  government  will  live,  and  live  forever. 

Then  it  is  eminently  proper  for  us  today  as  citizens  of  this  common- 
wealth to  pay  tribute  and  honor  to  our  ancestors — to  those  who  paved 
the  way  to  a  higher  civilization,  those  sturdy  men  and  courageous 
women  who  endured  the  privations  of  the  frontier  life  so  that  we  in 
this  far-removed  time  may  enjoy  the  blessings  gathered  from  their 
sacrifices.  The  pioneers  who  crossed  the  plains  with  ox  teams  and 
endured  the  hardships  of  the  journey  were  as  brave  men  and  as  true 
as  ever  followed  the  drum  tap  to  battle  and  to  death. 

There  has  been  no  duty  our  people  have  ever  refused  to  perform, 
and  no  sacrifice  too  great  for  them  to  make.  In  response  to  the  call 
for  settlers  they  came  to  the  Northwest,  and  the  result  has  been  that 
three  mighty  states  have  been  added  to  our  Union,  three  stars  added 
to  the  constellation,  stars  that  will  grow  brighter  and  brighter  as  the 
years  come  and  go. 

Wonderful  have  been  the  developments  of  our  State;  wonderful  is 
the  State  of  Oregon,  and  more  wonderful  are  its  possibilities.  Stand- 
ing here  in  the  morning  of  the  twentieth  century  let  us  look  forward, 
not  backward;  let  us  look  to  the  rising,  not  to  the  setting  sun;  let 
us  choose  blessings,  not  cursings;  let  us  carry  out  the  work  so  ably 
and  well  laid  by  our  noble  ancestors;  let  us  live  for  higher,  grander, 
and  nobler  things;  and  in  paying  tribute  to  their  memory  let  us  not 
forget  our  duty  as  American  citizens.  We  are  the  greatest  people  in 
the  world,  the  most  intelligent  people  in  the  world,  the  most  patriotic 
people  in  the  world.  Let  us  ever  bear  in  mind  that  the  American 
flag  stands  for  liberty,  justice,  and  equality;  that  its  stripes  of  red 
tell  of  the  blood  shed  to  purchase  liberty;  its  stripes  of  white  proclaim 
the  pure  and  heaven-born  purpose  of  a  government  that  derives  its 
just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed. 

In  introducing  Governor  Chamberlain,  Senator  Miller  said: 

A  few  years  ago,  in  the  cemetery  near  the  city  of  Eugene,  there 
was  laid  in  their  final  resting  place  the  remains  of  the  first  Governor 
of  the  State  of  Oregon — Hon.  John  Whiteaker.  By  the  side  of  the 
open  grave  stood  the  present  Governor  of  Oregon.  From  this  scene 
we  draw  the  picture  of  the  old  passing  off  the  stage  of  human  action, 
and  the  young  taking  their  place.  I  now  have  the  honor  and  the  very 
great  pleasure  of  introducing  to  you  Oregon's  most  popular  and  beloved 

11 


citizen,  his  excellency,  Governor  George  H.  Chamberlain,  who  will  now 
make  the  address  of  welcome. 

GOVERNOR  CHAMBERLAIN'S  ADDRESS. 

Mr.  President,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen: 

On  behalf  of  the  people  of  the  State,  I  welcome  you.  I  did  not 
know  until  I  saw  my  name  printed  on  the  programme  of  the  day's  pro- 
ceedings that  I  was  expected  to  address  you,  and  I  trust,  therefore, 
you  will  excuse  me  from  attempting  to  do  more  than  to  express  to 
you  the  hope  that  the  occasion  you  have  met  to  celebrate  may  be  a 
memorable  one  in  the  history  of  the  State. 

Oregon  was  admitted  to  the  Union  when  the  slavery  question  was  a 
uurning  one,  and  but  for  the  broader  patriotism  and  statesmanship 
which  animated  some  of  those  who  participated  in  the  discussions  in  the 
national  House  of  Representatives,  it  is  very  probable  that  Oregon  might 
not  have  been  admitted  until  after  the  Civil  War. 

The  purpose  of  this  meeting  is  to  recount  the  incidents  which  pre- 
ceded and  attended  the  admission  of  this  commonwealth  to  the  Union. 

Oregon  had  no  better  friend  in  the  House  in  support  of  her  admission 
than  Hon.  Eli  Thayer,*  a  member  of  Congress  from  Worcester,  Mass., 
and  I  request,  as  a  part  of  this  address,  that  there  be  published  in  the 
proceedings  of  today  an  article  prepared  by  Franklin  P.  Rice,  of  Worces- 
ter, Mass.,  and  published  in  the  Worcester  Magazine  in  its  issues  of 
February  and  March,  1906,  recounting  the  circumstances  attending  the 
efforts  of  Oregon  for  admission  to  the  Union,  and  the  part  played  therein 
by  Mr.  Thayer.  It  is  possible  that  others  who  are  to  address  you  today 
may  discuss  this  subject,  but  it  will  bear  repetition. 

Without  further  trespassing  upon  the  time  of  those  who  have  addresses 
prepared,  I  again  welcome  you. 

MR.  RICE'S  ARTICLE  ON  "ELI  THAYER  AND  THE  ADMISSION 

OF  OREGON." 

The  circumstances  attending  the  efforts  of  Oregon  to  attain  state- 
hood, and  its  success,  form  one  of  the  most  interesting  episodes  in  the 
political  history  of  the  country.  Strangely,  an  event  which  stirred  the 
public  mind  so  deeply  and  was  the  subject  of  general  comment  at  the 
time,  a  narrative  in  detail  of  which  furnishes  so  much  curious  informa- 
tion with  regard  to  the  first  strictly  partisan  demonstration  by  the 
Republican  Representatives  in  Congress,  has  been  overlooked,  ignored  or 
slightly  treated  by  historians  and  political  writers.  Even  in  works  which 
refer  especially  to  Oregon,  nothing  more  than  mere  mention  that  the 
State  was  admitted  to  the  Union  appears.  A  full  account  has  never  been 
given,  and  the  facts  are  to  be  found  only  in  the  pages  of  the  Congressional 
Globe  and  in  the  files  of  the  newspapers  of  that  period. 

A  particular  interest  attaches  locally  to  this  matter.  But  for  the 
prompt  and  determined  action  of  the  Representative  in  Congress  from 
the  Worcester  District  in  1859,  Oregon  would  not  have  been  admitted 

»Ell   Thayer   was    born    in    Mendon,    Massachusetts,    June    11,    1819;    died    in 

VorcfRter,  April  16,  1899.     Founder  of  the  New  England  Emigrant  Aid  Company, 

which   saved  the  territory  from   slavery  and   the  nation   to  freedom.     Author  of 

the  Kansas  Crusade.    Member  of  Congress,   1859-1861.     Through  his  determined 

actions  Oregon  was  admitted  a  State  of  the  Union  in  1859. 

12 


as  a  State  at  that  time;  would  not  have  been  represented  in  the  national 
Republican  convention  of  1860,  in  which  her  delegates  had  an  important 
if  not  controlling  part  in  the  nomination  of  Abraham  Lincoln;  would 
not  have  cast  her  electoral  vote  for  Lincoln  in  the  ensuing  election  or 
formed  one  of  the  phalanx  of  loyal  States  during  the  Civil  War;  and 
according  to  Governor  Chamberlain,  in  his  address  on  Massachusetts 
Day  at  the  Lewis  and  Clark  Exposition,  Oregon  might  not  have  been 
admitted  to  the  LTnion  until  1888.  Later  Governor  Chamberlain  wrote: 
"J  sincerely  trust  that  every  man,  woman  and  child  in  the  State  of 
Oregon  may  learn  how  deeply  they  are  indebted  to  Eli  Thayer,  and 
that  his  memory  may  serve  to  stimulate  the  present  generation  to  higher 
and  nobler  ambitions." 

The  consummation  of  this  purpose  of  injustice  towards  a  worthy 
and  enterprising  community  would  have  carried  with  it  a  greater  and  as 
lasting  reproach  to  the  Republican  party  as  that  which  rests  upon  the 
Democratic  party  for  so  long  keeping  Kansas  out  of  the  Union.  For- 
tunately the  new  party  was  saved  that  dishonor,  and  today,  no  one  with 
a  clear  knowledge  of  the  circumstances  doubts  that  Eli  Thayer  was  right 
in  combating  a  policy  so  mistaken  and  mischievous.  Yet  no  other  act 
of  his  public  life  brought  upon  him  as  sharp  condemnation  from  a 
large  portion  of  his  constituency,  and  the  body  of  his  political  associates 
in  the  House  of  Representatives,  as  this;  and  it  may  be  added  that 
no  other  experience  of  his  Congressional  service  gave  him  greater  satis- 
faction in  his  later  years. 

Organized  as  a  territory  in  1848,  and  with  the  example  of  California, 
with  an  independent  local  government  in  operation,  it  is  not  strange  that 
Oregon  was  impatient  for  a  condition  of  equality,  and  that  a  strong 
iksire  was  cherished  by  her  inhabitants  to  become  the  second  of  the 
great  Pacific  commonwealths  at  the  earliest  moment  that  Congress  could 
be  influenced  to  admit  her  into  the  Union  as  a  State.  The  outcome  of 
tli is  desire  and  effort  was  the  passage  by  the  House  of  Representatives 
of  the  Thirty-fourth  Congress,  in  its  last  session  (1857),  of  an  act 
authorizing  the  people  of  Oregon  to  form  a  State  Constitution,  but  the 
bill  did  not  reach  the  Senate  before  the  final  adjournment  of  that 
Congress.  A  constitution  was,  however,  adopted  by  a  convention,  and 
this  was  ratified  by  the  vote  of  the  qualified  citizens  of  the  territory, 
"'his  document  assured  a  Republican  form  of  government  in  accordance 
with  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  prohibited  slavery,  but 
it  contained  certain  provisions  excluding  negroes  and  mulattoes  from 
the  State  and  depriving  them  of  the  right  to  bring  or  maintain  suits 
in  its  courts,  and  other  objectionable  clauses,  which  were  in  conflict 
^ith  the  sentiment  and  practice  of  some  other  portions  of  the  country, 
'•/"he  restrictions  upon  persons  of  color  had  been  allowed  as  a  compromise 
with  a  large  element  in  Oregon  that  would  favor  a  free  State  govern- 
ment if  negroes  were  excluded  entirely,  but  would  vote  to  have  a  slave 
State  if  they  were  to  be  allowed  there.  The  vote  in  favor  of  this 
policy  was  8,640,  and  against  it  1,081.  "Many  of  those  who  voted 
for  exclusion  of  free  negroes  were  at  heart  opposed  to  the  policy,  but 
it  was  considered  necessary  to  throw  this  tub  to  the  whale  of  the  pro- 
slavery  party  to  secure  the  success  of  the  free  state  clause  of  this 
Constitution,"  said  the  Hon.  George  H.  Williams,  in  his  address  at  the 
fortieth  anniversary  of  the  admission  of  the  State.  The  negro  exclusion 
clause  still  remains  in  the  Constitution  of  Oregon,  and  a  recent  attempt 

13 


to  expunge  it  failed,  showing  that  the  sentiment  on  the  subject  of  negro 
equality  has  not  changed  in  that  locality  in  fifty  years.  This  clause 
is,  of  course,  inoperative  under  the  amendments  to  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States.  In  1859  this  sentiment  was  in  accordance  with 
that  of  the  people  of  Indiana  and  Illinois,  in  which  States  it  was  enforced 
by  stringent  regulations. 

During  the  first  session  of  the  Thirty-fifth  Congress  a  bill  to  admit 
Oregon,  with  the  Constitution  above  referred  to,  was  presented  by  the 
committee  on  territories  of  the  Senate,  and  was  brought  to  its  passage 
in  that  body  on  the  19th  of  May,  1858,  by  a  vote  of  35  to  17,  with  ten 
Senators  absent  or  not  voting.  Eleven  Republican  Senators  voted 
with  the  majority,  and  six,  Fessenden,  Hale,  Hamlin,  Durkee,  Trumbull 
and  Wade,  voted  against  admission.  But  with  these  latter  in  opposition 
we  find  Jefferson  Davis,  James  H.  Hammond,  Alfred  Iverson  and  James 
M.  Mason;  while  foremost  in  advocacy  of  the  measure,  although  he 
expressed  his  disapproval  of  the  negro  exclusion  clause  in  the  Oregon 
Constitution,  was  William  H.  Seward;  ajid  he  was  sustained  by  ten 
Republicans  who  followed  his  lead,  Cameron,  Chandler,  Collamer,  Dixon, 
Doolittle,  Foot,  Foster,  Harlan,  King  and  Simmons.  Charles  Sumner 
was  absent  on  account  of  disability,  and  Henry  Wilson,  as  he  afterwards 
told  Mr.  Thayer,  not  wishing  to  vote  either  for  or  against  admission, 
walked  into  the  cloak  room.  Mr.  Wilson  had  previously  characterized 
negro  exclusion  as  inhuman,  unchristian  and  unworthy  of  a  free  State, 
but  he  evidently  was  not  sufficiently  impressed  with  this  feeling  to  vote 
in  accordance  with  it.  The  only  other  Republican  absentee  was  Daniel 
CJark,  of  New  Hampshire. 

It  is  thus  clearly  indicated  that  the  admission  of  Oregon  was  not 
at  first  regarded  as  a  strictly  party  question,  and  it  probably  did  not 
become  such  until,  at  the  beginning  of  the  next  session,  it  was  discovered 
that  the  administration  forces  in  the  House  could  not  command  their 
usual  strength  in  its  support.  It  became  known  that  a  certain  number 
of  Democrats  of  extreme  southern  sentiment  who  opposed  the  erection 
of  any  more  northern  States  would  vote  against  the  bill.  This  gave 
advantage  for  once  to  the  minority,  and  the  Republican  managers  were 
quick  to  see  and  avail  themselves  of  an  opportunity  to  not  only  retaliate 
upon  the  Democrats  for  the  wrongs  in  Kansas,  but  also  to  exhibit  the 
party  strength  and  discipline.  This  intention  was  thwarted  by  Mr. 
Thayer. 

There  was  a  contingent  of  Republicans  which,  with  the  feeling  that 
Oregon  was  likely  to  be  a  Democratic  State,  and  the  apprehension  that 
it*  representatives  in  the  next  House  might  decide  the  question  of  the 
presidency  in  1860,  in  case  of  failure  to  elect  in  the  usual  way,  would 
vote  against  its  admission;  and  there  were  several  with  the  absurd 
fear  that  it  might  become  a  slave  State.  Mr.  Thayer  had  no  sympathy 
with  these  sentiments,  and  believed  it  to  be  the  duty  of  a  Representative 
of  the  sovereignty  of  a  great  people  to  vote  according  to  the  implication 
of  the  provisions  made  for  such  instances  without  reference  to  the 
political  tendencies  of  the  State  to  be  admitted.  But  be  believed  that 
Oregon  would  become  a  Republican  State,  especially  if  it  should  be 
admitted  by  Republican  votes,  and  he  had  no  fear  whatever  that  slavery 
would  be  established  there  or  in  any  other  place  where  it  did  not  exist, 
convinced  as  he  was  that  the  institution  had  received  its  death  blow 
in  the  Kansas  struggle.  In  this  he  proved  a  true  prophet,  for,  although 

14 


Oregon  was  admitted  in  the  face  of  Republican  opposition  and  predictions, 
it  soon  became  Republican,  and  has  with  few  exceptions  remained  so. 

Their  sense  of  justice  with  regard  to  Oregon's  right  to  enter  the 
Union  operated  strongly  with  both  Mr.  Seward  and  Mr.  Thayer  in 
influencing  their  action  and  vote;  and  in  this  the  difference  between 
statesmanship  and  mere  politics  was  demonstrated.  Aside  from  this, 
however,  a  stronger  motive  was  apparent  in  the  gaining  of  another  free 
State,  an  advantage  vastly  more  important  at  that  juncture  than  the 
recognition  of  an  abstraction,  as  negro  equality  in  that  instance  turned 
out  to  be;  or  a  temporary  triumph  over  political  opponents.  Thayer 
and  Seward  stood  upon  precisely  the  same  ground  in  regard  to  this 
matter,  but,  while  the  Massachusetts  politicians  had  no  censure  for  the 
New  York  statesman,  who  was  their  favorite  presidential  candidate, 
they  bitterly  denounced  Thayer  for  his  successful  revolt  against  party 
discipline,  and  his  Oregon  vote  was  one  of  the  principal  causes  of  his 
defeat  in  November,  1860. 

Early  in  January,  1859,  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  chairman  of  the 
committee  on  territories  in  the  House,  announced  that  he  had  the  bill  for 
the  admission  of  Oregon  ready  to  be  reported.  In  the  issue  of  the  New 
York  Tribune,  of  January  llth,  the  policy  of  the  Republicans  in  the 
House  under  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  case  was  indicated  and 
was  substantially  followed  as  it  developed.  It  would  appear  that  Mr. 
Greeley  and  others,  leaders  of  opinion  in  the  party,  had  formulated 
this  course,  and  expected  thereby  to  compel  the  Democratic  majority 
to  recede,  or  in  some  way  to  yield,  in  the  matter  of  the  restrictions  upon 
the  admission  of  Kansas;  or,  failing  in  this,  they  would  be  able  at 
least  to  punish  their  opponents  and  the  administration  by  applying  the 
power  of  the  Republican  organization  in  a  way  that  would  be  felt. 
So  the  dictum  went  out  that  the  minority  in  the  House,  now  having 
its  first  opportunity  to  control,  was  to  act  as  a  unit,  and  vote  to  a 
man  against  the  admission  of  the  new  State.  Mr.  Thayer  had  early 
intimation  of  this,  and  it  aroused  in  him  that  spirit  of  resistance  to 
partisan  dictation  which  he  so  fully  manifested  from  that  time.  He 
resolved  to  take  his  own  course  in  what  he  regarded  the  right  direction, 
and  to  abide  the  consequences,  whatever  they  might  be. 

Every  effort  was  now  put  forth  and  all  possible  pressure  exerted 
by  those  interested,  to  enforce  party  discipline,  creating  a  condition  in 
the  new  organization  with  which  its  members  had  not  been  familiar. 
Horace  Greeley  and  Thurlow  Weed  appeared  in  Washington,  though 
not  together,  to  use  their  influence  and  persuasion  with  the  Congress- 
men, and,  in  connection  with  the  arguments  and  imploration  of  Mr. 
Greeley,  was  the  implication  that  the  censure  of  the  influential  journal 
of  which  he  was  the  editor  would  fall  upon  those  who  should  have 
the  temerity  to  oppose  its  direction. 

In  a  statement  to  the  writer,  Mr.  Thayer  said  in  regard  to  the 
caucus  action : 

"I  protested  against  this  policy,  saying  that  Oregon  had  been  a 
territory  for  ten  years,  that  the  House  had  passed  an  enabling  act  with 
which  she  had  complied,  and  that  the  Senate  had  voted  to  admit  her 
with  the  aid  of  Republican  votes;  that  she  now  asks  admission  into  the 
Union  as  a  State,  presenting  for  our  acceptance  a  free-State  Constitution. 
That  I  would  not  be  bound  by  the  decision  of  the  caucus;  that  I  was 
strongly  in  favor  of  the  admission  of  the  new  State,  and  that  I  should 

15 


work  for  it,  and  induce  other  members  of  the  party  to  vote  for  it,  but 
that  I  should  vote  in  favor  of  it  even  if  no  other  Republican  could  be 
found  to  do  so. 

'  As  soon  as  the  caucus  was  over  I  went  to  Mr.  Stephens  and  told 
him  that  I  would  work  night  and  day  in  favor  of  his  report.  He  was 
much  pleased  with  the  promise  of  my  support. 

"I  began  at  once  to  urge  upon  Republicans  the  duty  and  good  policy 
of  admitting  Oregon.  By  persistent  effort  I  secured  sixteen  who  promised 
to  vote  for  admission,  and  should  have  had  others,  but  Greeley  and 
Weed  frightened  some  of  these  away,  and  weakened  my  support.  But 
on  the  day  of  the  vote  we  retained  fifteen  who,  with  the  Democrats, 
were  able  to  admit  the  State  by  a  majority  of  eleven. 

"On  the  day  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  I  gave  my  reasons  very  fully 
for  the  course  I  had  pursued.  It  was  well  known  at  that  time  that  it 
was  due  to  my  work  that  Oregon  became  a  State,  and  for  a  few  days 
I  was  roundly  abused  by  some  of  the  inferior  Republican  journals  and 
the  Tribune.  Soon,  however,  under  the  lead  of  the  New  York  Evening 
Post  and  the  National  Era,  nearly  all  the  Republican  papers  defended 
my  position. 

"Among  those  whose  confidence  in  their  own  judgment  Greeley  had 
seriously  impaired  was  Schuyler  Colfax,  who  remained  undecided  to  the 
day  of  voting.  That  morning  I  walked  to  the  Capitol  with  him.  On 
the  way  he  said:  'I  was  never  in  such  perplexity  about  my  duty  as  I 
am  in  this  Oregon  matter.'  We  were  just  then  passing  the  office  of  the 
National  Era,  and  I  suggested  that  he  get  Dr.  Bailey's  opinion.  Accord- 
ingly we  went  in,  and  he  said:  'Dr.  Bailey,  I  do  not  know  what  to  do 
about  Oregon.  Thayer  wants  me  to  vote  for  admission,  while  Greeley  is 
just  as  earnest  the  other  way.  Now  I  have  come  to  you  for  a  decision. 
I  shall  vote  upon  this  question  as  you  advise.'  Bailey  at  once  replied: 
'Vote  with  Thayer,  for  he  is  right.'  We  proceeded  to  the  Capitol,  and 
Mr.  Colfax  cast  his  vote  in  favor  of  the  bill. 

"I  had  felt  sure  of  John  Sherman's  vote,  but  he  did  not  appear  in 
the  House  at  all  that  day,  and  so  did  not  vote  either  way." 

The  grounds  of  Republican  opposition  to  the  Oregon  Constitution,  in 
addition  to  those  above  stated,  were  that  aliens  not  naturalized  but  who 
had  made  oath  of  their  intention  to  become  citizens  were  allowed  to 
vote  (certain  Democrats  joined  in  this  objection) ;  that  the  population 
was  less  than  the  number  required  in  a  representative  district  in  other 
States;  and  that  the  English  bill  made  an  invidious  distinction  in 
requiring  that  Kansas  should  wait  until  such  number  was  reached. 
These  were  public  reasons  upon  which  to  make  speeches  for  the  ears 
of  the  country.  But  the  private  reason  which  had  much  greater  weight 
with  many  Republican  members  was,  as  Mr.  Thayer  discovered,  the  fear 
that  Oregon  would  be  a  Democratic  State,  and  would  increase  the  majority 
of  that  party  in  Congress — "a  very  silly  reason,"  he  said,  "but  most  silly 
for  Republicans,  as  the  result  has  shown.  Had  this  reason  prevailed, 
it  would  have  been  even  more  powerful  in  the  Thirty-sixth  Congress, 
and  Oregon  would  not  have  been  represented  in  the  Chicago  convention 
in  1860." 

The  debate  began  on  the  10th  of  February,  and  was  participated  in 
by  Messrs.  Davis  of  Indiana,  Maynard  of  Tennessee,  Bingham  of  Ohio, 
Hughes  of  Indiana,  Grow  of  Pennsylvania,  and  others.  Mr.  Grow  pre- 
sented the  minority  report,  and  this  contained  the  burden  of  Republican 

16 


opposition.  The  debate  was  resumed  the  next  day.  Mr.  Clark  of  Mis- 
souri advocated  the  right  of  every  State  to  confer  the  privilege  of  suffrage 
on  whom  she  pleased.  New  York  required  a  negro  to  be  worth  $250 
before  he  could  vote,  but  any  white  man  could  vote. 

Mr.  Lane,  the  delegate  from  Oregon,  said  if  she  were  kept  out 
now  she  might  remain  with  only  one  representative  until  her  population 
was  300,000. 

Mr.  Dawes  of  Massachusetts  said  that  his  objections  were  in  the 
Oregon  Constitution,  which  was  not  only  not  Republican,  but  was  not 
a  free  Constitution.  He  concluded: 

"I  cannot  be  driven  from  my  opposition  because  there  are  other 
provisions  of  this  Constitution  which  incline  some  to  call  it  a  free  State, 
or  because  if  I  remand  it  back  to  a  territorial  government  under  the 
Dred  Scott  decision,  slavery  exists  there.  I  demand  something  more 
than  a  free  State  in  name.  I  want  the  reality.  If  slavery  exists  in 
Oregon  while  a  territory  it  is  because  the  people  want  it,  and  if  they 
want  it,  they  will  make  it  a  slave  State  in  name  as  in  fact  within  a 
twelvemonth  if  admitted. 

"I  speak  for  no  individual  but  myself,  and  for  no  constituency  but 
my  own.  I  think  I  know  their  sentiments;  and  should  I  vote  for  this 
bill,  I  should  expect  to  be  burnt  in  effigy  at  every  crossroad  in  my  district. 
J  do  not  intend  to  disappoint,  in  this  respect,  the  just  expectations  of 
those  who  sent  me  here." 

Mr.  Dawes  was  a  fair  exponent  of  what  he  thought  was  the  senti- 
ment of  his  State,  and  his  sincerity  and  uprightness  cannot  be  ques- 
tioned. But  it  developed  after  the  event  that  even  Massachusetts  was 
divided  in  opinion,  and  that  the  unqualified  disapproval  of  the  action 
of  Congress  in  admitting  Oregon  did  not  follow,  as  those  who  had 
organized  against  the  act  had  been  led  to  believe  by  Mr.  Greeley  and 
others  who  had  set  their  hearts  on  the  defeat  of  the  bill.  Even  Mr. 
Thayer  was  surprised  at  the  measure  of  assent  which  found  expression 
within  a  short  time,  and  he  had  expected  much  more  censure  than  he 
received  outside  of  his  district.  The  feeling  there  remained  strong  and 
bitter  to  the  end.  How  far  his  speech  operated  to  influence  the  opinion 
and  change  of  view  in  the  north  at  large  can  be  judged  by  its  perusal; 
there  is  reason  to  believe  that  its  effect  was  powerful  and  far-reaching, 
while  it  is  also  reasonable  to  assume  that  so  mistaken  a  position  as  that 
taken  by  the  majority  of  the  Republican  Representatives  in  this  affair 
would  not  have  been  universally  approved  by  their  constituents  even  if 
by  that  means  the  admission  of  Oregon  had  been  defeated. 

In  the  speeches  of  the  northern  members  on  this  occasion  there  was 
apparent  the  same  feeling  of  apprehension  in  regard  to  the  invincible 
nature  of  the  slave  power,  and  its  inevitable  advance,  with  which  so 
many  northern  minds  were  indoctrinated;  and  the  same  distrust  of  the 
ability  of  the  forces  of  freedom  to  cope  with  it,  so  widely  prevalent 
then  which  Mr.  Thayer,  with  his  supreme  faith  in  the  victory  of  right 
over  wrong,  and  his  certain  belief  in  the  decline  and  extinction  of  slavery, 
had  so  often  tried  to  counteract.  Whether  their  judgment  was  at  fault, 
or  their  fears  and  predictions  were  justified,  can  best  be  determined 
by  our  knowledge  of  the  course  of  events  in  Oregon  after  the  State 
was  admitted  under  the  obnoxious  conditions  against  which  they  pro- 
tested; and  the  wisdom  or  unwisdom  of  Mr.  Thayer  in  his  position 
can  be  shown  in  the  same  manner. 

17 
Sig.   2 


None  of  the  reasons  or  arguments  of  those  who  opposed  the  bill 
to  admit  Oregon  had  weight  with  the  Representative  from  the  Worcester 
district;  some  of  them  he  considered  unworthy  of  a  great  reform  party 
which  the  Republicans  claimed  to  be.  But  he  did  not  question  the  honesty 
of  those  who  were  governed  by  them,  and  exhibited  more  charity  towards 
those  from  whom  he  differed  than  they  extended  to  him.  His  argument 
was  presented  with  his  usual  clearness  and  force.  Some  parts  of  his 
speech  are  here  given: 

"Mr.  Speaker:  My  colleague  (Mr.  Dawes)  who  has  just  addressed 
the  House  is  unable  to  see  how  an  honest  Representative  of  the  State 
of  Massachusetts  can  vote  for  the  admission  of  Oregon.  Well,  in  the 
exercise  of  charity,  I  can  see  how  a  Massachusetts  Representative,  both 
honest  and  patriotic,  can  vote  against  the  admission  of  Oregon.  He  can 
do  it  by  not  comprehending  the  question,  or  he  may  do  it  in  obedience 
to  party  dictation.  I  will  now  show  my  colleague  how  an  honest 
Representative  can  vote  for  the  admission,  if  he  will  listen  to  my  argu- 
ment and  the  reasons  which  I  shall  give  in  defense  of  my  position. 

"Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  this  is  a  strange  necessity  that  compels  the 
northern  representatives  upon  this  floor  to  give  their  reasons  for  their 
votes  for  the  admission  of  another  free  State  into  this  confederacy. 
Sir,  I  shall  vote  for  the  admission  of  the  State  of  Oregon  without  hesi- 
tation, without  reluctance,  and  without  reserve.  So  far  as  my  vote 
and  my  voice  can  go,  I  would  extend  to  her  such  a  welcome  as  becomes 
her  history,  as  becomes  her  promise  for  the  future,  and  such  as  becomes 
our  own  high  renown  for  justice  and  magnanimity,  a  welcome  not  based 
on  contemptible  political  calculation,  or  still  more  contemptible  partisan 
expediency;  but  such  a  welcome  as  sympathy  and  friendship  and  patriot- 
ism should  extend  to  another  new  State;  such,  sir,  as  becomes  the  birth- 
day of  a  nation. 

"This  people  comes  before  us  in  accordance  with  the  forms  of  law, 
and  upon  the  invitation  of  this  House;  and  it  is  too  late  to  apply  a 
party  test  upon  this  question.  On  the  19th  of  May  last,  a  vote  was 
taken  in  the  Senate  upon  the  admission  of  Oregon,  and  eleven  Republi- 
can Senators  voted  for  her  admission,  while  six  Republican  senators  only 
voted  against  her  admission;  and,  sir,  I  have  not  heard  of  any  attempt, 
on  the  part  of  the  six  Senators  who  voted  for  the  rejection  of  Oregon, 
to  read  out  of  the  Republican  party  the  eleven  Senators  who  voted  for 
her  admission;  and  even  if  that  attempt  is  now  to  be  made,  we  will  see 
whether  it  is  in  the  power  of  a  minority  to  read  a  majority  out  of  the 
party." 

After  a  tribute  to  the  courage,  enterprise,  and  sterling  qualities  of 
the  early  settlers  and  the  people  of  Oregon,  he  continued: 

"In  the  territory  they  have  established  our  free  institutions.  There, 
sir,  strong  and  deep,  they  have  laid  the  foundations  of  a  free  State, 
and  they  come  here,  like  the  wise  men  of  the  East,  not  asking  gifts,  but 
bringing  gifts.  What  do  they  bring?  Why,  sir,  the  trophies  of  their 
own  labor,  the  evidences  of  their  own  worth.  They  present  schools, 
churches  and  workshops.  .  .  And  what  are  we  doing  here?  Why,  sir, 
quibbling  about  things  which  are  comparatively  unessential,  and  which 
pertain  exclusively  to  the  people  of  Oregon,  and  not  to  us  or  our  duties 
here;  quibbling  about  points  which,  if  New  York  or  Massachusetts  were 
in  the  place  of  Oregon,  would  secure  some  votes  on  this  side  of  the 
House  against  their  admission.  Massachusetts,  which  you  know,  sir,  I 

18 


never  defend  anywhere,  even  Massachusetts  does  not  allow  the  negro 
to  be  enrolled  in  her  militia. 

"What  law  of  reformation  is  this?  It  is  the  pharisaical  law  of  dis- 
tance, distrust,  and  derision.  It  is  not  the  Christian  law  of  contact, 
confidence  and  communion.  The  Pharisees  denounced  the  founder  of 
Christianity  as  'the  friend  of  publicans  and  sinners.'  That  class  would 
repel  all  who  do  not  agree  with  them  to  the  fullest  extent.  Shall  we 
pursue  a  similar  course  in  relation  to  the  people  of  Oregon?  Is  it 
wise  to  do  so?  Is  it  expedient  to  reject  their  application  on  such  grounds? 

"What  objections  do  Republicans  present  to  this  application?  They 
say  there  is  not  sufficient  population,  and  they  claim  that  it  is  their 
mission  to  see  that  the  Democratic  party  shall  recover  its  consistency. 
At  whose  expense?  At  the  expense  of  the  consistency  of  the  Republican 
party.  I  submit  that  it  is  better  for  the  Republican  party  to  preserve 
for  itself  the  consistency  which  it  possesses,  rather  than  attempt  to 
recover  for  the  Democratic  party  the  consistency  which  it  has  lost. 

"The  Republican  party  in  the  House,  without  one  exception,  so  far 
as  I  know,  voted  for  the  enabling  act,  inviting  Oregon  to  come  here 
with  a  constitution  to  be  admitted  as  a  State.  I  have  no  disposition, 
and  there  is  no  need,  to  inquire  here  what  is  the  population  of  Oregon; 
for,  as  a  Republican,  I  am  pledged  to  no  rule  on  this  subject.  I  opposed, 
as  did  my  colleague,  and  my  friends  on  this  side  of  the  House,  the 
restriction  which  was  put  upon  the  territory  of  Kansas.  We  protested 
against  it  then,  and  protest  against  it  now.  We  have  no  sympathy 
whatever  with  that  restriction  and  are  ready  at  any  time  to  give  an 
honest  vote  for  its  repeal. 

"Another  objection  is  urged  against  the  clause  in  the  Constitution  of 
Oregon  which  excludes  negroes  and  mulattoes  from  that  territory;  and, 
in  addition,  provides  that  they  shall  not  bring  any  suit  therein.  It  is 
said  that  this  is  in  contravention  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
This  I  do  not  admit.  But  what  if  it  is?  The  Constitution  of  the  people 
of  Oregon  is  not  submitted  to  our  vote.  We  cannot  amend  it;  all  we 
have  to  do  about  it  is  to  see  that  it  is  republican  in  form.  If  it  is 
unconstitutional  it  is  not  in  the  power  of  Congress  to  impart  to  it  the 
least  vitality,  and  it  will  fall  by  its  own  weight.  But  gentlemen  argue 
here  as  if  we  could  by  our  votes  give  life  and  power  to  an  instrument 
in  violation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  Sir,  this  argument 
is  weak  and  futile. 

"But,  sir,  this  provision  is  no  more  hostile  to  the  United  States 
Constitution  than  are  the  laws  of  Indiana  and  Illinois  which  exclude  free 
negroes  from  their  boundaries." 

Then,  after  detailing  the  reasons  which  inclined  the  people  of  Oregon 
to  exclude  negroes,  he  said: 

"It  is  proved,  by  the  official  record,  that  the  Republican  party  in 
Oregon  combined  with  the  free-State  Democratic  party  to  sanction  and 
ratify  this  provision  which  is  here  called  in  question.  What  Republican, 
or  what  friend  of  the  free  States,  is  justified,  under  these  circumstances, 
in  voting  to  exclude  the  people  of  Oregon  from  this  confederacy  on 
account  of  this  provision,  which  is  only  an  expedient  and  not  a  thing 
for  practical  use?" 

He  then  justified  the  clause  in  relation  to  alien  suffrage  in  con- 
sideration of  the  high  rate  of  wages  for  labor  in  Oregon,  and  said  it 

19 


was  a  wise  policy  to  attract  emigration.     The   Kansas  argument  next 
claimed  his  attention. 

"There  is  another  argument — that  Kansas  has  been  excluded  by  the 
Democratic  party,  and  that,  therefore,  Republicans  ought  to  exclude 
Oregon.  The  argument  amounts  to  this:  that  we  should  abuse  Oregon 
because  the  Democratic  party  have  abused  Kansas.  Now  I,  for  one, 
am  content  that  the  record  of  the  Republicans  in  respect  to  Oregon 
should  be  better  than  the  record  of  the  Democrats  in  respect  to 

Kansas " 

He  quoted  Senator  Seward's  remarks  at  the  close  of  his  speech  in 
favor  of  the  admission  of  Oregon,  made  in  the  Senate  the  previous 
May,  as  follows: 

"It  seems  to  me,  therefore,  to  be  trifling  with  the  State  of  Oregon, 
trifling  with  the  people  of  that  community,  and  to  be  unnecessary,  and 
calculated  to  produce  an  unfavorable  impression  on  the  public  mind,  in 
regard  to  the  consistency  of  the  policy  of  admitting  States  into  the 
Union,  to  delay  or  deny  this  application.  For  one,  sir,  I  think  that  the 
sooner  a  territory  emerges  from  its  provincial  condition,  the  better; 
the  sooner  the  people  are  left  to  manage  their  own  affairs,  and  admitted 
to  participation  in  the  responsibilities  of  the  Government,  the  more 
vigorous  the  States  which  these  people  will  form  will  be.  I  trust  there- 
fore, that  the  question  will  be  taken,  and  that  the  State  will  be  admitted 
without  delay." 

In  reference  to  the  characterization  of  the  people  of  Oregon  as 
inferior,  by  the  Republicans,  Mr.  Thayer  said: 

"They  may  be  inferior  to  us  in  education,  in  refinement,  and  in 
etiquette;  they  may  not  appear  as  well  in  the  drawing  room  as  some 
of  our  eastern  exquisites;  but  in  the  sturdy  virtues  of  honesty,  of 
fidelity,  of  industry,  and  of  endurance,  they  are  above  the  average  of 
the  people  of  this  confederacy.  They  have  my  sympathy,  and  never 
will  I  oppress  them  by  my  vote  or  my  voice. 

"You  may  send  them  away  from  the  doors  of  the  Capitol,  but 
they  will  go  thinking  less  of  you,  and  less  subject  thereafter  to  your 
influence.  They  may  come  again  with  a  hypocritical  constitution,  trust- 
ing to  effect  by  statute  law  what  you  would  not  allow  in  organic  law. 
They  may  not  come  at  all,  or  they  may  come  with  a  Constitution  tolerat- 
ing slavery.  Discouraged  and  repulsed  by  northern  votes,  finding  no 
sympathy  where  they  had  most  right  to  expect  it,  they  might  not  be  able 
longer  to  resist  the  slave-State  party  in  the  territory,  acting  under  the 
Dred  Scott  decision.  Is  it  not  right,  therefore,  for  the  lovers,  of  free- 
dom to  advocate  the  immediate  transition  of  Oregon  from  the  condition 
of  a  territory  in  which  slavery  is  lawful,  to  the  condition  of  a  State  in 
which  it  is  forbidden?  Which  do  we  choose,  a  slave  territory  or  a 
free  State? 

"By  this  act  which  I  now  advocate,  we  shall  bind  firmly  to  the  old 
States,  by  indissoluble  bonds,  the  remotest  portions  of  our  possessions." 

He  closed  with  a  strong  protest  against  non-resident  control;  and  he 
emphasized  the  value,  importance  and  permanency  of  the  Union,  declaring 
that  it  was  and  would  be. 

A  writer  of  that  period  says: 

"With  the  promulgation  of  this  liberal  and  statesmanlike  speech, 
which  was  characterized  by  all  its  author's  usual  energy,  clearness, 
and  practical  force,  was  opened  upon  him  an  opposition  by  a  portion 

20 


of  the  press  of  his  own  party,  that  has  not  ceased  till  the  present 
time  (1860).  It  is  against  these  very  assaults  that  he  is  defending 
himself  today.  Oregon  was  admitted  by  the  votes  of  fifteen  Republicans 
in  the  House  of  Representatives,  Eli  Thayer  leading  the  column." 

Mr.  Greeley,  who  had  set  his  heart  on  the  defeat  of  the  Oregon  bill, 
was  incensed  at  the  result,  and  under  the  irritation  induced  by  it, 
expressed  himself  in  the  Tribune  of  February  14th  [1860]  as  follows: 

"We  hold  that  the  great  body  of  Republicans  voted  just  right  on 
this  question,  and  of  course  that  the  fifteen  who  separated  from,  opposed 
and  defeated  them,  did  a  grievous  wrong.  .  .  If  Oregon  in  1860, 
unbalanced  by  Kansas,  shall  elect  a  pro-slavery  President,  then  woe  to 
those  Republicans  whose  votes  shall  have  enabled  her  to  do  so.  It  is 
said  that  Oregon  is  a  free  State,  but  it  would  vote  for  pro-slavery 
interests.  By  the  express  terms  of  the  Constitution  (of  Oregon),  any 
of  Mr.  Eli  Thayer's  constituents  and  supporters  guilty  of  having  African 
blood  in  his  veins  who  should  visit  Oregon  with  intent  to  settle  therein, 
is  guilty  of  a  grave  offence  against  the  majesty  of  that  State,  and  will 
be  treated  like  an  outlaw  and  a  felon.  .  .  .  That  border  ruffian  Democrats 
should  sanction  and  give  effect  to  such  cruel  injustice  is  but  natural; 
that  a  few  Republicans  should  be  induced,  no  matter  on  what  specious 
grounds,  to  aid  them,  is  deplorable." 

This  was  wrong-headed;  the  sting  of  disappointment  was  too  plain 
and  the  personal  bias  too  clear  in  these  resentful  strictures  to  secure  the 
support  of  the  other  prominent  Republican  journals,  although  less 
influential  ones,  including  those  in  the  Worcester  district,  under  the 
mistaken  assumption  that  it  was  safe  to  follow  the  lead  of  the  Tribune, 
kept  up  the  attack  for  a  few  days,  when,  discovering  their  error,  they 
became  silent.  Mr.  Greeley,  whose  nature,  in  spite  of  his  foibles  and 
occasional  eccentricities,  was  a  noble  and  magnanimous  one,  and  whose 
mental  grasp  in  public  matters  was  generally  comprehensive,  soon 
recovered  his  better  sense,  and  saw  if  he  did  not  acknowledge  his  mistake. 
As  a  sequel  we  find  him  a  few  months  later  a  fellow  delegate  with 
Mr.  Thayer  to  represent  Oregon  in  the  national  Republican  convention 
of  1860,  where  they  both  worked  in  harmony  to  secure  the  nomination 
of  Abraham  Lincoln. 

The  Tribune  editorial  drew  from  Dr.  Bailey  the  sharp  reproof  in 
the  National  Era  of  February  27th: 

"Why  was  the  Tribune  silent  when  the  Senate  passed  the  bill? 
Why  did  it  not  arraign  the  eleven  Reptiblican  Senators  and  admonish 
Representatives  not  to  follow  their  example?  Waiting  until  Oregon  is 
admitted,  it  passes  in  silence  over  the  first  offenders  in  the  Senate  and 
blazes  away  at  the  fifteen  Republicans  who  only  followed  a  high 
example.  Such  intolerance  is  not  to  be  tolerated.  .  .  .  We  rejoice  that 
Oregon  is  in  the  Union,  and  that  it  stands  there  by  the  aid  of  eleven 
Republican  Senators  and  fifteen  Republican  Representatives." 

Dr.  Bailey  further  declared  that  while  he  considered  the  negro 
exclusion  clause  in  the  Constitution  of  Oregon  detestable,  the  question 
should  be  dealt  with  practically,  and  Oregon  would  send  true  Representa- 
tives to  Washington  after  a  little  time.  This  proved  sound  prophecy. 

In  the  New  York  Evening  Post  of  February  14th,  William  Cullen 
Bryant  expressed  his  view  of  the  matter  as  follows: 

"That  different  members  of  the  Republican  party  should  have  enter- 
tained different  opinions  as  to  their  duty  in  this  matter  does  not  surprise 

21 


us,  but  it  seems  to  us  that  those  who  voted  to  admit  Oregon,  took  a 
larger  and  more  statesmanlike  view  than  those  who  voted  to  exclude 
her.  .  .  .  We  are  glad  for  our  part  that  Oregon  is  a  State.  That 
question  is  now  taken  out  of  the  sphere  of  controversy,  and  the  way 
is  all  the  clearer  for  the  admission  of  Kansas  on  the  same  terms." 

Henry  J.  Raymond,  in  the  New  York  Times  of  the  same  date: 

"Oregon's  population  is,  probably,  not  half  enough  to  entitle  her 
to  admission  into  the  Union  under  the  principle  incorporated  into  the 
Kansas  bill  last  winter.  But  the  Democrats,  the  very  men  who  voted 
then  that  no  State  should  thereafter  come  into  the  Union  without  popula- 
tion enough  to  entitle  her  to  a  representative,  voted  now  to  admit  Ore- 
gon; and  the  Republicans  who  voted  then  against  any  such  requisition 
and  declared  their  purpose  to  pay  no  attention  to  it,  voted  against  the 
admission  of  Oregon  now.  Mr.  Eli  Thayer  and  several  other  Republi- 
cans had  the  courage  and  independence  to  disregard  the  decree  of  the 
caucus,  and  voted  for  the  bill." 

The  Springfield  Republican  in  the  issue  of  February  16th,  printed 
the  speeches  of  Dawes  and  Thayer,  against  and  for  the  Oregon  bill, 
and  in  later  issues,  probably  greatly  to  Mr.  Dawes'  surprise,  the  follow- 
ing appeared: 

"Some  Republican  papers  incline  to  be  miserable  over  the  admission 
of  Oregon,  and  to  deal  savagely  with  the  Republican  members  of  Congress 
who  voted  for  it.  But  we  cannot  sympathize  with  any  such  feeling.  .  .  . 
The  exclusion  of  Oregon,  if  it  could  have  been  accomplished,  would  have 
been  a  great  mistake,  on  any  other  grounds  than  the  application  to  her 
of  the  same  rule  which  was  applied  to  Kansas  at  the  last  session. 

"The  anti-negro  articles  in  the  Oregon  Constitution  do  not  differ 
substantially  from  the  provisions  in  several  of  the  western  States'  con- 
stitutions. (There  was  a  negro  exclusion  clause  in  the  Topeka,  Kansas, 
constitution  for  which  the  Republicans  in  the  House  voted  the  previous 
session.) 

"Those  who  voted  for  the  admission  simply  declared  the  Constitution 
republican  in  form,  and  containing  no  provision  violative  of  the  Federal 
Constitution.  We  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  this  is  as  far  as  Congress 
has  a  right  to  go  in  the  matter. 

"Some  of  our  Republican  friends  object  to  this  broad  doctrine  of 
State  sovereignty,  that  it  limits  their  field  of  operations  against  the 
institution  af  slavery.  If  the  limitations  are  just  and  inevitable  they 
must  be  submitted  to.  There  can  be  nothing  gained  by  raising  issues  that 
cannot  be  logically  maintained,  and  upon  which  we  are  sure  to  be  beaten. 
We  not  only  fritter  away  our  strength  by  such  controversies,  but  we 
destroy  public  confidence  in  the  discretion  of  the  party  and  the  nationality 
of  our  principles.  What  we  can  do  under  the  Constitution  is  to  put  the 
general  government  into  the  hands  of  the  supporters  of  freedom  and 
free  labor.  .  .  .  Freedom  is  making  distinguished  triumphs  in  the  terri- 
tories, with  the  most  determined  and  inveterate  efforts  of  the  general 
government  against  it.  .  .  Let  us  have  practical  questions  to  contend 
for,  and  not  mere  abstractions  and  impossibilities." 

The  Boston  Journal   had  the  following: 

"We  should  have  preferred  to  s?e  Oregon  and  Kansas  placed  in  the 
same  position,  before  the  former  was  admitted  to  the  Union.  But  as 
that  was  not  done,  we  do  not  see  but  that  a  precedent  has  now  been 
established  which  will  inure  decidedly  to  the  advantage  of  Kansas, 

22 


whenever  she  shall  legitimately  apply  for  admission.  As  to  Oregon 
herself,  we  welcome  her  into  the  Union.  She  is  one  more  in  the  phalanx 
of  free  States.  Hitherto  she  has  been  rather  freely  colonized  and  ruled 
by  Democratic  office-holders  and  office-seekers;  but  that  day  will  soon 
pass  over.  By  virtue  of  her  position,  her  interests,  and  the  principles 
of  her  thronging  emigrants,  she  will  ultimately  become  the  New  England 
of  the  Pacific." 

These  opinions  from  the  Republican  press  show  that  there  was  a 
large  preponderance  of  sentiment  in  favor  of  Mr.  Thayer's  course, 
though  in  Massachusetts,  and  especially  in  his  own  district,  there  was 
less  agreement  with  him  than  elsewhere. 

The  admission  of  Oregon  was  celebrated  on  the  evening  of  the  day 
of  the  passage  of  the  bill  by  a  large  concourse  of  citizens  of  Washing- 
ton, with  the  marine  band  to  serenade  the  distinguished  friends  of  the 
measure,  including  Mr.  Thayer.  President  Buchanan  appeared  at  a 
window  of  the  White  House,  and  said  that  expansion  was  in  future 
the  policy  of  our  country,  and  cowards  alone  feared  and  opposed  it. 
He  then  called  for  the  playing  of  Yankee  Doodle  by  the  band.  It  was 
the  irony  of  fate  that  he  was  compelled  to  affix  his  signature  a  few 
months  later  to  the  bill  which  admitted  Kansas  into  the  Union  as 
another  free  State. 

Mr.  Thayer  was  visited  by  the  procession  next  after  the  President, 
at  his  rooms  at  the  west  end  of  Pennsylvania  Avenue.  After  the  saluta- 
tory, music  and  vociferous  calls,  he  made  his  appearance  at  a  window. 
When  the  cheering  had  subsided,  he  said: 

"Friends  and  Fellow  Citizens:  I  know  not  with  what  words  to 
express  to  you  my  gratitude  for  the  honor  of  this  call,  for  you  have 
taken  me  wholly  by  surprise.  I  am  told  that  this  is  a  demonstration 
in  honor  of  the  grand  event  of  the  day — the  birth  of  a  new  and  sovereign 
State.  The  humble  vote  which  I  have  had  the  pleasure  to  give,  con- 
tributing to  the  result,  has  been  given  in  accordance  with  my  convictions 
of  duty,  without  hope  of  approbation,  without  fear  of  condemnation. 
I  have  merely  followed  the  lead  of  my  principles,  and  adhering  to  them, 
as  I  have  done,  and  as  I  intend  to  do.  I  stand  ready  to  take  their 
legitimate  consequences  as  they  come — whether  they  be  tokens  of  favor 
or  of  disfavor  (cheers).  With  you  I  rejoice  to  welcome  to  this  con- 
federacy the  heroic  men  who,  more  than  twenty  years  ago,  in  the  dim 
and  distant  solitudes  away  beyond  the  Rocky  Mountains, 

'Where    rolled    the    Oregon,    and    heard    no    sound, 
Save    Its    own    flashings,' 

founded  our  own  institutions,  and  established  the  arts  and  occupations 
of  peace.  With  my  whole  heart  do  I  welcome  to  our  embrace  these 
pioneers  of  our  own  material  progress,  not  as  aliens  or  strangers,  but 
as  friends  and  brothers,  'bone  of  our  bone,  and  flesh  of  our  flesh  (cheers).' 
Another  pledge  have  we  now  of  the  permanency  of  this  Union,  for  having 
firmly  bound  to  the  republic  our  remotest  possessions,  we  have  hemmed 
in  and  firmly  secured  all  intermediate  parts  of  our  national  domain. 
But,  gentlemen,  I  have  no  respect  for  assurances  of  the  permanency 
of  this  Union.  The  Union  is  and  will  be!  (Prolonged  cheers.)  It  is 
not  a  thing  to  be  advocated  and  argued  for;  it  is  a  thing  fixed,  settled 
and  determined.  Far  transcending  in  importance  the  temporary  con- 
venience of  one  State  or  of  all  the  States,  it  is  a  trust  which  we  hold, 

23 


not  for  our  posterity  only,  but  for  the  world!  That  trust  we  are 
bound  to  deliver  unimpaired  to  succeeding  generations,  and  we  will  so 
deliver  it.  (Cheers.)  Again  thanking  you  for  this  honor,  with  the  best 
wishes  for  yourselves,  for  Oregon  and  the  republic,  I  bid  you  good- 
night." 

In  commenting  on  this  speech  in  the  Liberator,  Mr.  Garrison 
significantly  remarked:  "The  people  of  Massachusetts  will  settle  scores 
with  Mr.  Thayer  hereafter."  But  it  will  be  difficult  to  indicate  in  this 
patriotic  and  union-loving  speech  what  there  is  that  any  citizen  of 
Massachusetts  should  not  thoroughly  commend  and  be  proud  of. 

It  was  not,  however,  so  much  the  people  of  Massachusetts  as  the 
politicians  and  party  managers  with  whom  Mr.  Thayer  came  in  conflict 
by  his  course  in  Congress,  which  was  entirely  consistent  with  his 
announced  principles  at  the  time  he  entered  into  the  Kansas  crusade  in 
March,  1854.  He  then  declared  his  belief  in  the  practical  application 
of  popular  sovereignty  in  saving  the  territories  to  freedom  and  prevent- 
ing the  spread  of  slavery,  and  he  proceeded  with  this  method  in  filling 
Kansas  with  free-State  emigrants,  and  gaining  so  large  a  majority  there 
that  the  efforts  of  the  slave  power  were  unable  to  overcome  it.  Mr. 
Thayer  advocated  this  method  to  popular  audiences  throughout  the  free 
north,  from  the  beginning  to  the  time  of  his  election  to  Congress  in 
1856,  at  which  time  he  was  particularly  outspoken,  yet  he  was  elected 
by  a  great  majority.  Popular  sovereignty  opposed  to  the  Wilmot  Proviso 
doctrine,  or  non-intervention  against  Congressional  control  were  as 
much  the  issues  in  1856  as  in  1860,  when  Mr.  Thayer  was  defeated, 
and  it  was  about  these  measures  that  the  great  clamor  was  made  by 
the  politicians,  from  whom  the  strength  of  opposition  to  him  came. 
With  the  people  directly  Mr.  Thayer  would  have  had  no  difficulty. 

From  1856  to  1860  the  Republican  party  was  rapidly  rising  to 
power,  and  in  the  Thirty-sixth  Congress  it  gained  control  of  the  House. 
In  their  elation  its  Representatives  were  disposed  to  be  highhanded, 
and  to  demand  strict  party  allegiance  in  whatever  measures,  sound  or 
unsound,  its  managers  or  its  majority  dictated.  To  this  Mr.  Thayer 
would  not  submit.  On  more  than  one  occasion  the  Republican  organiza- 
tion was  led  into  injudicious  action  which  party  zeal  at  the  time  justified, 
but  which  mature  judgment  has  condemned.  Such  was  the  attempt 
to  prevent  the  admission  of  Oregon,  while  another  instance  was  the 
intention  to  form  new  territorial  governments  by  the  Thirty-sixth 
Congress,  thus  giving  their  control  to  the  Democratic  appointees  of 
President  Buchanan.  Eli  Thayer  prevented  both  mistakes,  and  in  this 
grim,  earnest  and  determined  man  of  power  was  discovered  a  force 
against  which  numbers  could  not  prevail,  for  he  was  successful  in 
thwarting  schemes  which  he  did  not  approve  after  his  party  had  the 
majority  in  the  House.  His  presence  was  subversive  of  all  the  canons 
of  party  management. 

The  politicians'  creed — my  party,  right  or  wrong — was  well  expressed 
by  a  Massachusetts  editor  at  the  time,  writing  with  reference  to  Mr. 
Thayer's  independent  course: 

"E»iscipline,  order,  regularity,  are  as  necessary  for  a  political  party 
as  for  an  army.  Subordinates  must  receive  and  obey  the  orders  of  the 
commander-in-chief 

"If  a  case  like  this  should  present  itself  in  the  army,  where  one 
of  the  number  was  found  acting  with  the  enemy,  openly  and  without 

24 


eoncealment,  and  refusing  all  obedience  to  the  organization,  the  order 
would  be  properly  given,  'Shoot  the  traitor!'  He  would  certainly,  as 
the  least  that  could  be  expected,  be  drummed  out  of  camp  to  the  tune 
of  the  Rogue's  March." 

Later,  when  Mr.  Thayer,  in  a  public  meeting  in  Worcester,  referring 
to  the  statement  of  Mr.  Dawes,  that  he  would  expect  to  be  burned  in 
efligy  in  his  district  if  he  voted  for  the  admission  of  Oregon,  said  that 
when  a  matter  of  such  grave  interest  was  at  stake,  he  would  have  voted 
for  it  if  he  had  known  that  his  constituents  would  have  burned  him  in 
person,  the  same  editor  characterized  his  position  as  "cheap  effrontery 
which  passes  with  many  for  high  moral  courageV  This  shows  how  a 
man's  judgment  may  be  affected  by  political  feeling. 

President  Miller  next  introduced  Hon.  Frederick  V. 
Holman,  President  of  the  Oregon  Historical  Society,  who 
spoke  as  follows: 

HON.    F.    V.    HOLMAN'S    ADDRESS. 

The  history  of  Oregon  as  a  community  covers  a  period  of  time  less 
than  seventy  years.  Prior  to  the  time  of  the  forming  of  the  Oregon 
provisional  government,  May  2,  1843,  what  is  now  the  State  of  Oregon 
can  hardly  be  said  to  have  been  a  community.  At  that  time  there  were 
less  than  three  hundred  Americans,  men,  women  and  children,  in  Oregon. 
These  were  made  up  of  Protestant  missionaries  and  taeir  families  and 
a  few  other  Americans  who  had  settled  in  the  Willamette  Valley.  There 
were  in  addition  not  to  exceed  seventy-five  French  Canadians.  The  pro- 
visional government  was  crude  and  lacking  in  jurisdiction,  in  power, 
and  in  authority,  but  it  was  a  government  for  mutual  protection  and 
for  peace  and  order.  It  was  established  by  a  vote  of  52  for  and  50 
against,  in  an  assemblage  of  102  residents  of  Oregon,  held  by  common 
consent,  to  consider  the  question  of  establishing  a  provisional  govern- 
ment. The  sole  survivor  of  this  assemblage,  Francis  Xavier  Matthieu, 
is  still  possessed  of  all  his  mental  faculties,  bat  not  able  to  be  here  today 
by  reason  of  physical  infirmities.  Although  a  Frencn  Canadian,  and 
then  not  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  his  was  the  deciding  vote  which 
meant  so  much  for  American  supremacy  in  Oregon.  He  early  became 
an  American  citizen  and  has  been,  ever  since  his  arrival  in  1842,  a  most 
exemplary  resident  of  Oregon.  He  has  been  a  member  of  its  Legislative 
Assembly  since  Oregon  became  a  State.  The  real  provisional  govern- 
ment was  adopted  by  the  people  July  26,  1845,  after  the  arrival  of 
the  immigrations  of  1843  and  1844,  but  it  was  only  a  provisional  govern- 
ment. It  had  no  sovereignty,  but  it  was  sufficient  and  efficient. 

The  formation  of  the  provisional  government  was  the  outgrowth  of 
Anglo-Saxon  traditions  and  instinct  for  free  government  and  for  law 
and  order.  The  settlement  of  Oregon  was  a  racial  movement,  the  result 
of  the  genius  and  the  instincts  of  what  we  call  the  Anglo-Saxon  race — 
but  it  is  a  people  rather  than  a  race — a  name  given  to  a  people  who 
developed  a  desire  and  capacity  to  settle  and  upbuild  new  countries  and 
for  government  by  the  people,  for  personal  liberty,  and  for  civilization. 
It  made  its  home  in  England,  where  it  grew  and  assimilated  all  others 
who  lived  with  it,  and  then  sent  its  children  to  have  and  to  hold  that 
part  of  North  America  which  is  now  the  United  States.  That  people 
was  ever  liberty-loving  and  aggressive,  and  it  followed  the  star  which, 

25 


always  in  advance,  showed  the  way  of  the  westward  course  of  empire, 
until  the  star  stood  over  Oregon. 

That  people  needed  its  centuries  of  stay  in  England  to  more  fully 
develop  to  grow  in  civilization,  and  to  make  certain  its  love  of  personal 
liberty  and  of  law  and  order.  But  it  needed  still  a  certain  personal 
character,  an  independence  of  the  individual,  a  hardiness,  a  personal 
courage  and  initiative,  an  ability  to  dare  and  to  do,  to  journey  to, 
and  to  live  in  a  new  country  far  from  a  base  of  supplies.  It  required 
several  generations  to  succeed  the  early  settlers  on  the  Atlantic  seaboard, 
to  push  westward,  to  learn  how  to  live  in  the  woods,  to  cross  the  moun- 
tains into  Kentucky  and  Tennessee  and  maintain  themselves  there,  in 
conflict  with  the  Indians,  before  they  could  be  the  self-reliant,  courageous 
men  and  women  competent  to  cross  the  wild  plains,  to  conquer  the 
difficulties  of  forests,  of  mountains,  of  streams,  and  of  rivers,  to  travel 
a  distance  of  2,000  miles,  and  then  to  make  Oregon  their  home  and  a 
part  of  the  United  States,  and  thus  settle  practically  what  diplomacy 
of  statesmen  had,  up  to  that  time,  been  unable  to  accomplish.  They 
laid  deep  and  strong  the  foundations  of  this  commonwealth. 

As  it  was  characteristic  that  the  Oregon  pioneers  should  make  a 
provisional  government  for  themselves  without  outside  authority,  so  it 
was  characteristic  that  of  their  own  initiative  and  without  authority  from 
Congress,  they  should  make  a  constitution  as  a  State  and  boldly  insist 
that  they  should  be  admitted  into  the  Union.  What  Oregon  then  lacked 
in  population,  it  made  up  in  importance  and  in  opportunity.  Simple 
as  its  Constitution  is,  it  was  sufficient  and  strong  and  it  has  not  always 
been  changed  for  the  better  by  modern  innovations.  It  is  well  sometimes 
to  look  backwards  to  see  if  we  have  improved  on  the  methods,  the 
plans,  and  the  ideas  of  our  ancestors. 

It  is  a  source  of  gratification  that  there  are  present  here  today 
some  of  these  Oregon  pioneers,  who  have  seen  the  birth  of  Oregon  and 
her  subsequent  development,  and  have  had  a  part  in  making  it  a  State; 
who  found  here  a  fertile  wilderness,  but  nevertheless  a  wilderness,  and 
have  helped  that  wilderness  to  become  productive  field?;  who  have 
assisted  in  making  waste  places  into  cities  and  towns,  and  to  grow 
into  centers  of  trade,  of  wealth,  of  education,  and  of  refinement;  who 
have  seen  a  population  of  a  few  hundreds  become  greater  than 
hundreds  of  thousands  for  each  of  those  hundreds.  It  is  remarkable 
that  in  so  short  a  time  that  all  this  could  be  accomplished.  It  goes  way 
and  far  beyond  the  expectations  or  the  hopes — yes,  even  the  dreams 
of  the  Oregon  pioneers  before,  on  the  way,  and  after  they  reached 
the  Oregon  of  long  ago.  It  is  rarely  that  ancestors  can  see  with  mortal's 
eyes  the  fruition  of  their  hopes  for  their  descendants,  but  some  of 
these  ancestors  of  Oregon  are  some  of  its  moderns.  They  enjoy  with 
their  descendants  the  results  of  the  pioneers'  labors  and  enterprise. 

Today  let  us  not  forget  Dr.  John  McLoughlin,  without  whose  aid 
and  assistance  many  of  these  early  settlers  would  not  have  survived. 
He  died  broken  hearted  while  the  Oregon  constitutional  convention  was 
in  session,  a  martyr  to  his  humanity.  In  his  manly  reply  to  the  criticism 
of  the  officers  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  for  his  assistance  to  the 
early  Oregon  pioneers,  Dr.  McLoughlin  said  he  had  full  reliance  that 
some  day  justice  would  be  done  to  him.  That  reliance  was  well  placed 
to  the.  extent  that  justice  has  been  done  to  his  memory.  He  stands  first 
to  day  in  the  esteem  and  affections  of  the  Oregon  pioneers  and  their 

26 


descendants.  All  true  Oregonians  appreciate  his  noble  acts,  his  loving- 
kindness,  and  his  humanity,  and  recognize  him  as  the  father  of  Oregon. 

Great  as  Oregon  is  today,  it  is  but  an  earnest  of  what  she  will  be 
tomorrow.  Her  fiftieth  anniversary  as  a  State  calls  attention  to  how 
she  has  grown.  And  yet  Oregon  has  just  begun.  In  another  fifty 
years  she  should  be  one  of  the  most  important  and  influential  States 
west  of  the  Mississippi  River.  She  has  ever  been  true  to  the  motto  on 
her  territorial  seal,  "Alis  volat  propriis" — she  flies  with  her  own  wings. 
It  is  not  only  that,  on  her  own  initiative,  she  made  her  own  provisional 
government  and  her  own  State  Constitution,  but  she  developed  herself. 
The  impetus  she  received  from  her  first  home-building  pioneers  has  con- 
tinued and  grown  in  power  ever  since,  and  will  continue  in  force. 

This  is  a  day  when  all  true  Oregon  pioneers  should  be  particularly 
remembered,  especially  the  pioneers  of  1843,  1844,  1845,  and  1846. 
The  first  three  arrived  in  Oregon  during  the  existence  of  the  convention 
of  joint  occupancy  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain.  The 
immigration  of  1846  started  on  its  journey  prior  to  the  boundary  treaty 
of  June  15,  1846,  and  when  there  were  rumors  of  war  with  Great 
Britain  over  the  Oregon  country.  These  emigrants  of  1846  did  not 
learn  of  the  treaty  until  after  their  arrival  in  Oregon.  It  was  these 
four  immigrations  which,  by  their  coming  to  Oregon,  contributed  greatly 
to  the  final  determination  of  the  Oregon  question.  What  they  had  done 
could  not  be  ignored  by  either  country.  Without  the  aid,  assistance, 
or  protection  of  the  United  States  their  daring  and  patriotism  in  effect 
won  an  empire,  in  extent,  for  their  country.  The  part  these  early 
pioneers  had  in  saving  Oregon  lacks  the  glamour  of  a  conquest  by  arms, 
but  it  has  the  greater  virtue  of  a  country  won  and  settled  and  civilized 
by  the  peaceable  conquest  of  a  brave,  a  hardy,  a  law-abiding,  and  a 
patriotic  people. 

The  emigrants  of  1843  were  warned  at  Fort  Hall,  which  was  about 
700  miles  from  their  journey's  end,  that  wagons  could  be  taken  no  farther. 
They  knew  it  was  a  dangerous  experiment  and  of  doubtful  outcome. 
But  the  warning  was  unheeded.  They  were  possessed  of  full  confidence 
in  their  ability  to  reach  the  Willamette  Valley  with  their  wagons. 
They  had  with  them  their  wives,  their  children,  and  all  their  property. 
They  would  not  turn  back.  They  intended  to  succeed — not  to  fail — and 
they  succeeded.  Their  success  was  a  great  factor  in  the  determination 
as  to  which  of  the  two  nations  a  large  part  of  the  Oregon  country, 
now  a  part  of  the  United  States,  should  belong.  Their  failure  would 
have  been  disaster,  not  only  to  themselves  and  their  families,  but  to 
Oregon.  They  cut  roads  through  the  forests.  They  made  their  way 
over  mountains  and  across  deep  and  dangerous  rivers.  They  found 
or  made  the  way  for  others  to  follow.  They  surmounted  every  difficulty. 
They  made  possible  the  early  settlement  of  Oregon.  Their  efforts  were 
not  in  vain.  Can  Oregon  ever  forget  these  men  and  these  women? 
Their  fortitude,  their  hardships,  and  their  successes  are  a  part  of  the 
heritage  of  each  Oregonian  born  and  to  be  born. 

The  succeeding  emigrants  who  are  entitled  to  be  known  as  Oregon 
pioneers,  in  addition  to  those  already  mentioned,  were  of  a  similar  kind 
and  quality  and  assisted  in  the  upbuilding  of  Oregon. 

Every  privation,  every  tribulation,  and  every  struggle  of  its  true 
pioneers  has  made  Oregon  all  the  better,  all  the  stronger,  and  all  the 
more  self-reliant.  Such  ancestors  and  such  traditions  could  but  make 

27 


a  great  commonwealth.  The  results  we  see  in  part  only  today.  As 
long  as  history  and  tradition  exist  the  Oregon  pioneers  and  their  deeds 
cannot  be  forgotten.  They  will  be  held  forever  in  honor  and  in  most 
grateful  memory  and  appreciation. 

Senator  Miller,  in  introducing  Hon.  George  H.  Williams, 
said: 

"The  next  speaker  needs  no  introduction  at  my  hands.  He  is  known 
throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  this  great  commonwealth.  He 
has  held  many  positions  of  trust  and  honor,  having  been  a  United 
States  Senator  from  Oregon,  and  occupied  a  seat  in  the  cabinet  under 
President  Grant.  It  therefore  affords  me  great  pleasure  to  introduce 
to  you  Oregon's  'Grand  Old  Man,'  Hon.  George  H.  Williams." 

ADDRESS    TO    PIONEERS 
By  Hon.  George  H.  Williams,  1853. 

I  have  been  requested  to  represent  upon  this  occasion  the  pioneers 
of  Oregon  in  a  speech  of  ten  minutes.  Ten  years  ago,  on  the  fortieth 
anniversary  of  the  admission  of  Oregon  as  a  State,  I  made  an  address 
in  which  I  reviewed  at  considerable  length  the  political  history  of 
Oregon  from  1853  to  1865 — "all  of  which  I  saw,  and  a  part  of  which 
I  was."  I  shall  not  repeat  now  any  part  of  that  address. 

I  was  appointed  chief  justice  of  the  Territory  of  Oregon  by  President 
Pierce,  and  arrived  here  in  June,  1853.  I  went  from  New  York  to 
the  Territory  of  Iowa  to  live  in  1844,  at  which  time  there  was  a  scattered 
population  up  and  down  the  Mississippi  River,  back  of  which  stretched 
out  an  apparently  limitless  prairie  in  monotonous  and  tiresome  uni- 
formity. I  shall  never  forget  the  sense  of  pleasure  I  experienced  when 
the  little  steamer  Columbia,  upon  which  I  was  a  passenger,  crossed  the 
turbulent  bar  into  the  calm  bosom  of  the  Columbia  River.  There  then 
broke  upon  my  vision  a  panorama  of  newness,,  freshness  and  variety 
to  which  I  was  not  accustomed.  Everything  was  radiant  with  the 
glories  of  the  glorious  month  of  June;  the  air  was  soft  and  balmy, 
enlivened  by  a  gentle  breeze  and  brightened  by  cloudless  skies.  On 
each  side  of  the  river  were  green  grassy  banks  so  grateful  to  the  eyes, 
back  of  which  stood  in  solemn  grandeur  the  deep,  dark  woods,  the  bright 
stream  of  water,  the  mountains  in  the  distance,  with  Hood  towering 
above  the  others  with  its  snow-capped  summit.  All  these  were  a  revela- 
tion and  a  joy  that  can  better  be  imagined  than  described. 

When  I  came  to  Oregon  there  were,  I  should  judge,  about  20,000 
people  in  the  territory.  I  base  this  estimate  upon  the  fact  that  at  the 
first  election  for  delegate  to  Congress  after  the  territorial  government 
was  organized  in  1849,  the  whole  number  of  votes  cast  was  7,400.  All 
of  these  people,  with  comparatively  few  exceptions,  crossed  the  plains; 
all  or  nearly  all  lived  in  the  valleys  west  of  the  Cascade  Mountains. 
Since  the  landing  of  the  Pilgrims  on  Plymouth  Rock,  those  who  have 
pushed  back  savage  life  and  the  wilderness  and  opened  the  way  for 
the  advance  of  civilization  have  been  pioneers;  but  it  is  doubtful  if  any 
pioneers  have  been  exposed  to  such  hardships  and  privations  and  suffered 
so  much  as  the  pioneers  who  came  by  land  to  Oregon.  To  make  the 
journey  from  any  of  the  States  in  the  Mississippi  valley  to  the  Pacific 

28 


Coast  was  to  put  thousands  of  miles  of  uninhabited  country  between 
home,  kindred  and  friends  and  the  end  of  the  journey.  It  took  strong 
hearts  to  make  this  sacrifice.  Six  months  was  about  the  average  time 
of  the  journey.  Covered  wagons  drawn  by  oxen  were  the  general  style 
of  transportation.  Men,  women,  children  traveled  in  this  way;  the 
dangers  and  difficulties  of  the  journey  cannot  be  adequately  described; 
thousands  of  miles  through  an  unknown  country,  inhabited  only  by 
savage  men  and  wild  animals.  The  trail  was  desolate,  dreary  and  dusty; 
sometimes  it  was  difficult  to  obtain  food  and  water  for  the  cattle;  teams 
sometimes  gave  out  and  died;  sometimes  the  cattle  were  stampeded  by 
the  Indians,  whose  attitude,  if  not  actually  hostile,  was  not  friendly. 
Rocky  acclivities  and  unbridged  streams  were  encountered.  Hunger 
sometimes  haunted  their  camps;  sickness  and  death  were  their  traveling 
companions;  wives  lost  their  husbands,  husbands  their  wives,  and  parents 
their  children,  and  without  funeral  rites  or  flowers  to  bedeck  their  rude 
coffins,  the  lost  ones  were  left  by  the  wayside  to  the  companionship  of 
wolves  and  the  wanton  winds  of  the  desert.  Many,  and  indeed  most 
of  those  who  reached  their  destination  arrived  weak,  exhausted  and 
impoverished,  and  not  a  few  in  a  state  of  utter  destitution;  but  they 
found  the  promised  land  a  land  of  fertility  and  beauty  to  soothe  their 
sorrows  and  brighten  their  hopes  for  the  future. 

I  think  it  is  fitting  that  I  should  say  a  word  or  two  about  Dr. 
John  McLoughlin.  He  was  at  the  head  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
when  that  company  swayed  the  destinies  of  the  whole  Oregon  country. 
He  had  more  influence  with  the  Indians  than  any  other  man  who  ever 
lived  on  the  Pacific  Coast;  they  reverenced  and  feared  him.  He  was  a 
born  commander  of  men.  I  remember  his  long  silvery  locks,  his  ruddy 
complexion,  his  powerful  frame,  and  accomplished  manners.  I  can  say 
of  him  with  as  much  truth  as  of  any  man  I  ever  saw  that  he  was  one 
upon  whom  every  God  had  seemed  to  set  his  seal  to  give  the  world 
assurance  of  a  man.  His  claim  to  the  grateful  remembrance  of  the 
people  of  Oregon  is  founded  upon  the  fact  that  when  the  emigrants 
arrived  from  the  plains  poor  and  needy,  he  fed  the  hungry,  clothed  the 
naked,  and  helped  them  to  start  life  anew  in  their  new  homes.  He  lost 
his  standing  with  the  British  Company  on  account  of  his  friendship  for 
American  settlers;  he  moved  from  Vancouver,  where  at  one  time  he 
reigned  supreme,  to  Oregon  City,  where  he  died. 

It  is  difficult  to  understand  how  the  early  pioneers  to  Oregon  managed 
to  establish  homes  and  acquire  the  means  of  livelihood.  There  were 
no  sawmills  to  make  lumber  for  houses;  no  flouring  mills  to  make  flour 
for  food;  no  manufacturing  establishments  to  make  furniture,  farming 
implements,  or  anything  needful  for  farming  or  housekeeping,  and  no 
place  where  goods  or  groceries  could  be  purchased.  Some  assistance  was 
derived  from  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company;  and  the  Methodist  missionaries, 
who  came  by  the  way  of  Cape  Horn,  were  able  and  willing  to  give  some 
aid,  and  in  one  way  and  another,  it  is  hard  to  tell  how,  they  got  things 
together,  so  that  when  I  came  to  Oregon  a  considerable  number  of  them 
were  comfortably  situated.  Many  of  these  early  settlers  took  up  land 
claims  so  that  they  had  plenty  of  land,  and  with  little  cultivation  they 
could  raise  grain  and  vegetables  sufficient  to  supply  their  wants,  with 
unlimited  pasturage  for  stock.  Some  few  horses  and  cattle  were  brought 
across  the  plains  by  the  settlers,  but  their  stock  consisted  chiefly  of 
Spanish  cattle  obtained  from  California,  and  Cayuse  Indian  ponies. 

29 


For  two  or  three  years  after  I  came  to  Oregon  I  rode  around  the 
district  in  which  I  was  judge  on  a  Cayuse  pony,  and  in  1854  I  purchased 
a  wild-eyed  Spanish  cow  for  $80,  which  was  the  best  I  could  do  to  supply 
my  family  with  milk. 

There  was  a  time  when  I  knew  nearly  all  the  men  in  the  territory. 
My  judicial  district  embraced  the  counties  of  Marion,  Linn,  Lane,  Benton, 
Polk  and  Yamhill.  Court  time  was  a  sort  of  gala  day  for  the  people; 
some  came  to  the  county  seat  to  attend  the  court,  some  to  do  business 
with  the  county  authorities,  and  many  came  to  meet  their  friends  and 
neighbors  and  have  with  them  a  good  social  time.  I  have  hobnobbed 
with  the  dignitaries  of  the  nation  in  Washington  and  elsewhere,  but 
I  can  revert  to  no  social  occasions  which  it  gives  me  more  pleasure  to 
remember  than  the  jolly  go-as-you-please  meetings  of  the  pioneers  at 
the  sessions  of  the  court  in  old  territorial  days. 

I  always  found  in  traveling  around  the  country  a  warm  welcome 
in  the  homes  of  the  settlers — their  houses  were  frail  shelters,  consisting 
generally  of  one  room,  which  was  kitchen,  dining  room  and  bed  room, 
with  an  upper  room  to  which  the  young  people  ascended  by  a  ladder. 
When  I  have  stopped  at  these  homes  after  riding  all  day  on  horseback 
through  the  rain  and  mud,  I  have  been  met  with  a  generous  hospitality, 
and  after  eating  a  hearty  supper  of  hot  bread  and  bacon,  have  retired 
to  the  full  enjoyment  of  "tired  nature's  sweet  restorer,  balmy  sleep." 
There  were  generally  two  beds  in  the  family  room,  one  in  each  corner; 
one  of  them  was  usually  assigned  to  me,  and  with  my  experience  among 
the  pioneers  of  Iowa  and  Oregon,  I  acquired  a  dexterity  in  undressing 
and  dressing  in  the  presence  of  the  family  that  would  fill  a  circus  rider 
with  envy.  It  was  easy  going  to  bed,  because  the  family  sat  with  their 
faces  turned  away,  but  to  get  up  in  the  morning  while  the  women  were 
around  getting  breakfast — hie  laber  hoc  opus  est. 

Most  of  the  pioneers,  especially  those  who  took  up  donation  claims, 
were  pioneers  by  birth  and  education.  They  came  from  the  sparsely 
settled  parts  of  Missouri  and  other  western  States.  They  knew  little 
or  nothing  and  cared  less  about  the  customs  and  practices  of  the  fashion- 
able world;  they  lived  the  simple  life,  not  the  romantic  simple  life  of 
which  we  read,  but  the  real,  practical,  simple  life.  They  had  none  of 
the  luxuries  in  which  the  people  of  the  East  indulge.  The  "get-rich- 
quick"  fever  was  not  very  prevalent.  Some  wandered  off  to  California, 
attracted  by  the  gold  excitement  there,  but  they  soon  returned  to  content- 
ment with  their  homes  in  Oregon. 

There  is  something  in  the  freshness,  freedom  and  expansion  of  a 
new  country  that  enlarges  and  intensifies  human  sympathy.  The 
pioneers  were  notably  kind  and  generous  to  each  other.  The  home  of 
the  pioneer  was  the  home  of  hospitality.  The  traveler  was  not  turned 
away  because  it  was  inconvenient  to  entertain  him.  The  pioneers  had 
not  much  to  give,  but  they  gave  with  a  wholeheartedness  that  made  it 
seem  like  an  abundance.  Oregon  in  pioneer  days  was  a  free  country. 
The  air,  the  water,  the  land,  the  sunshine  and  the  rain,  were  free,  and 
the  people  were  in  the  full  enjoyment  of  their  freedom.  There  were 
no  laws  in  existence  providing  what  the  people  should  eat,  drink,  or 
wear,  or  whether  they  should  go  to  church,  to  places  of  amusement,  or 
stay  at  home  on  Sunday.  I  recognize  the  difference  in  condition! 
created  by  an  increase  of  population,  but  it  is  due  to  the  pioneers  to 
say  that  with  all  their  freedom  they  were  as  well  behaved  as  are  our 

30 


people  of  the  present  time,  with  the  multitudinous  laws  to  regulate  the 
conduct  of  the  private  citizen. 

Publicists  have  written  books  to  show  how  governments  originated, 
but  Oregon  affords  a  practical  illustration  of  the  germination,  growth, 
and  development  of  a  government.  Here  were  a  few  scattered  people, 
without  any  political  or  social  organization;  they  were  exposed  to  the 
hostilities  and  the  depredations  of  wild  animals;  instinctively  the  idea 
of  getting  together  for  mutual  protection  began  to  work;  neighbors  con- 
sulted with  each  other  about  the  situation,  and  finally  a  meeting  of 
about  100  persons,  comprising  a  large  part  of  the  men  in  the  territory, 
was  held  at  Champoeg,  to  take  into  consideration  the  formation  of  a 
government;  committees  were  appointed,  meetings  held,  onicials  named, 
and  the  ideas  about  a  government  were  working  towards  a  result,  but 
nothing  definite  was  accomplished  until  1845,  when  a  provisional  govern- 
ment was  adopted — that  is  to  say,  a  local  government,  to  exist  until 
a  government  was  established  over  the  territory  by  the  United  States. 
Provision  was  made  in  the  law  creating  the  provisional  government  for 
civil  and  religious  liberty,  and  for  all  the  fundamental  principles  of  a 
republican  and  representative  government.  It  was  highly  creditable 
in  all  respects  to  the  people  by  whom  it  was  adopted.  In  1848  Congress 
established  a  territorial  government  for  Oregon,  which  took  the  place 
of  the  provisional  government.  To  this  new  government,  which  con- 
tinued to  exist  until  1859,  the  people  seemed  to  be  much  attached.  It 
was  a  simple  and  comparatively  inexpensive  government,  well  adapted 
to  the  circumstances  of  the  country.  Several  efforts  were  made  to  sup- 
plant this  government  by  the  State  government  without  success,  but 
finally  in  1857  the  people  voted  for  a  convention  to  frame  a  State 
Constitution.  A  convention  was  held,  a  Constitution  framed,  which 
was  adopted  by  the  people  in  1859.  Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  a  com- 
plete government  was  slowly  and  gradually  evolved  from  a  few  individuals 
isolated  in  a  wilderness. 

This  Constitution,  that  was  adopted  in  1859,  has  had  a  hard  time 
of  it.  Between  the  accommodating  constructions  put  upon  it  and  the 
initiative  and  referendum  it  has  had  about  as  much  stability  as  a 
weather-cock  in  a  gale  of  wind.  Written  constitutions  are  made  or 
are  proposed  to  be  made  to  protect  the  minority  of  the  people  from  the 
aggressions  and  injustices  of  the  majority;  and  in  these  days  of  frenzied 
finance  and  freak  legislation,  such  protection  is  an  absolute  necessity. 
Majorities  need  restrictions  upon  their  passions  and  power,  as  well 
as  individuals.  Majorities  are  sometimes  right  and  sometimes  wrong, 
and  they  have  been  wrong  a  thousand  times  since  Jesus  Christ  was 
crucified  to  satisfy  a  majority  of  the  people. 

I  have  lived  many  years  of  my  life  among  pioneers,  and  I  know 
the  courage,  patience  and  endurance  with  which  they  overcome  the 
privations  and  hardships  of  pioneer  life.  Every  year  there  is  a  gather- 
ing of  pioneers  in  Portland,  and  to  see  these  gray-headed  men  and  women 
tottering  to  the  place  of  meeting  is  to  see  a  procession  of  home-builders 
and  State-builders,  conquerers  of  the  wilderness,  weary  and  worn,  near 
the  close  of  their  long  and  useful  lives.  Every  morning  when  I  take 
up  the  Oregonian,  with  hardly  an  exception,  I  read  of  the  death  of  som-d 
old  pioneer  man  or  woman,  and  the  time  is  not  far  distant  when  the 
pioneers  of  Oregon  will  be  a  tradition  and  a  memory.  I  am  86  years 
of  age  and  may  not  have  another  opportunity  to  speak  in  a  public  manner 

31 


for  the  pioneers  of  Oregon,  and  I  want  to  record  my  testimony  here 
that  with  few  exceptions  they  were  a  brave,  generous,  and  just  people. 

"And  the  actions  of  the  past 

Smell  sweet  and  blossom  in  the  dust." 

President  Miller  now  introduced  Hon.  Frederick  N.  Judson, 
of  St.  Louis,  Mo.,  who  delivered  the  Anniversary  Address. 

ADDRESS   OF   FREDERICK   N.   JUDSON 
OF  ST.  Louis. 

It  is  with  deep  appreciation  of  the  honor  conferred,  that  I  appear  im 
response  to  the  invitation  of  the  State  Historical  Society  to  address  you  on 
this  commemoration  of  the  semi-centennial  of  the  Statehood  of  Oregon. 
The  exhaustive  and  scholarly  researches  of  the  history  of  Oregon  by 
that  society  are  known  far  beyond  the  borders  of  the  State,  and  this 
celebration  is  fittingly  held  under  its  auspices.  So  thorough  have  been 
their  researches,  and  those  of  your  local  historians  and  pioneer  associa- 
tions, in  their  investigation  and  publication  of  the  interesting  and 
thrilling  incidents  of  the  dramatic  history  of  Oregon,  that  I  am  impressed 
with  the  feeling  that  one  from  another  State  should  come  into  such  a 
presence  as  this  rather  to  hear  than  to  be  heard  upon  any  subject 
relating  to  the  history  of  Oregon  . 

Yet  if  you  go  beyond  your  borders  on  such  an  occasion  there  is  an 
appropriateness  in  one  from  the  State  of  Missouri  bringing  you  greet- 
ings upon  this  anniversary,  as  Missoiiri,  more  than  any  other  State, 
may  claim  to  be  the  mother  State  of  Oregon.  Missouri  was  the  gateway, 
through  which  passed  the  great  tides  of  immigration,  which  made  the 
early  settlements  on  the  Pacific  Coast,  and  she  therefore  contributed 
more  than  any  other  State  to  the  early  settlement  of  Oregon.  Many 
Missouri  names  are  among  your  pioneers,  and  very  many  of  your 
people  have  come  from  Missouri  homes,  or  trace  back  their  lineage  to 
Missouri  ancestry.  St.  Louis  was  the  starting  point  of  the  Lewis  and 
Clark  expedition;  the  earliest  trading  post  for  the  furrier  business  of 
the  Northwest,  and  it  was  in  St.  Louis  that  the  pioneer  bands  of 
emigrants  were  organized. 

The  names  of  two  of  the  counties  of  Oregon,  Linn  and  Benton, 
happily  commemorate  the  services  of  Missouri  Senators  in  behalf  of 
Oregon.  Senator  Lewis  F.  Linn  first  introduced  in  Congress  the  appeal 
of  the  settlers  on  the  Columbia  River  for  protection,  and  was  the  enthusi- 
astic advocate  of  Oregon  until  his  death  in  1843.  The  great  Senator 
of  Missouri,  Thomas  Hart  Benton,  as  we  shall  have  occasion  to  see, 
made  a  thorough  investigation  and  mastery  of  the  situation  of  Oregon. 
He  was  foremost  in  advocating  the  termination  of  the  joint  occupancy 
and  the  settlement  of  the  disputed  boundary,  and  he  braved  the  pro- 
slavery  sentiment  of  his  own  State  in  advocating  the  territorial  organiza- 
tion with  the  exclusion  of  slavery  in  1848.  His  name  is  worthy  of  lasting 
honor  in  Oregon. 

THE  STRUGGLE  OF  THE  NATIONS. 

The  early  struggles  of  the  nations  for  possession  of  Oregon,  witk 
the  conflicting  claims  of  Spain,  France,  Russia,  Great  Britain  and  th« 

32 


United  States,  are  of  profound  and  romantic  interest.  Spain,  in  her 
conquest  of  the  westei'n  world,  in  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries, 
claimed  the  right  of  dominion  over  the  whole  western  coast  of  the  con- 
tinent, through  discovery  and  actual  occupation.  Under  the  Florida 
Treaty  of  1819  the  United  States  acquired  the  Spanish  title,  whatever 
it  was,  in  the  Oregon  territory.  France  made  extended  claims  in  the 
new  world,  but  vanquished  in  Canada,  she  gave  way  to  the  superior 
prowess  of  Great  Britain,  and  her  right  to  the  Mississippi  and  the  Rocky 
Mountains  passed  to  the  United  States  in  the  Louisiana  Purchase  of  1804. 
Russia  was  at  one  time  a  competitor  in  the  struggle  for  this  territory, 
but  withdrew  by  her  settlement  with  Great  Britain  on  the  line  of  54 
degrees  40  rrinutes  as  her  southern  boundary  on  the  American  coast, 
and  her  rights  in  Alaska  have  since  passed  to  the  United  States.  The 
English  claims  were  more  formidable  in  a  practical  view  as  they  were 
based  not  only  upon  exploration  but  upon  occupation  by  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  of  the  territory  with  its  armies  of  traders  and  furriers. 

Time  will  not  permit  dwelling  in  detail  upon  the  thrilling  and  dramatic 
incidents  of  the  struggle  of  the  nations  for  the  possession  of  this  terri- 
tory between  the  mountains  and  the  Pacific.  The  American  competition 
with  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  in  the  establishment  of  Astoria  by 
John  Jacob  Astor  in  the  early  part  of  the  last  century — the  interrup- 
tion of  the  War  of  1812,  and  the  abandonment  of  the  American  enterprises 
thereafter — the  anomalous  joint  occupancy  by  Great  Britain  and  the 
United  States — the  mild  rule  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  under  the 
benevolent  McLoughlin — the  improvised  provisional  government  estab- 
lished by  the  settlers — the  inspiring  and  heroic  labors  of  Lee,  Whitman 
and  De  Smet,  and  their  co-laborers,  recalling  the  devoted  work  of 
Marquette  in  the  Mississippi  valley — the  procession  of  emigrants  slowly 
toiling  over  the  mountain  passes — the  tales  of  Indian  savagery  continually 
imperilling  the  struggling  and  isolated  settlements — the  thrilling  nar- 
rations of  privation  and  bereavement — these  are  all  the  commonplaces 
in  your  history,  and  will  be  the  theme  of  song  and  story  for  generations 
to  come. 

OREGON  AND  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

As  we  are  commemorating  the  admission  of  Oregon  into  State- 
hood in  the  United  States,  it  seems  appropriate  to  limit  our  consideration 
of  these  eventful  annals  to  those  features  which  are  directly  connected 
with  the  great  drama  of  our  national  history.  No  State,  not  of  the 
original  thirteen,  has  contributed  so  materially  in  the  circumstances  of 
its  acquisition  and  territorial  organization  to  the  great  national  issues 
which  have  divided  the  country.  The  anomalous  period  of  joint  occupancy 
between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain — the  improvised  self- 
government — the  boundary  settlement,  preventing  a  threatened  war — 
the  territorial  organization  precipitating  the  angry  slavery  issue,  which 
finally  resulted  in  civil  war — these  are  all  involved  in  the  relation  of 
Oregon  to  the  United  States. 

The  Oregon  of  the  Oregon  question  prior  to  the  settlement  of  the 
boundaries  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  was  geograph- 
ically not  the  Oregon  which  was  admitted  to  Statehood  in  1859.  The 
Oregon  country  included  not  only  what  is  now  the  State  of  Oregon, 
but  also  the  States  of  Washington,  Idaho,  and  part  of  Montana  and 
Wyoming,  and  all  of  British  Columbia  west  of  the  Rocky  Mountains  and 

33 

Sig.   3 


south  of  the  Alaska  line  of  54  degrees  40  minutes.  This  area  was 
greater  than  that  of  the  thirteen  colonies  at  the  date  of  the  Revolution. 
It  included  the  entire  territory  between  the  Rocky  Mountains  and  the 
Pacific  Ocean,  the  Alaska  boundary  on  the  north  and  that  of  Califoriva 
on  the  south. 

While  there  is  no  historical  verification  for  the  report  that  there 
was  at  any  time  danger  of  the  abandonment  of  Oregon  by  the  United 
States,  it  is  true  that  the  organization  of  the  territory  was  delayed 
by  opposition  on  different  grounds.  Until  the  great  immigration  of  the 
early  '40's  there  was  general  ignorance  in  the  eastern  States  as  to 
the  value  of  the  property  for  settlement.  Some  were  opposed  to  a 
further  extension  of  the  Union  westward,  as  they  had  been  opposed  to 
the  Louisiana  Purchase,  and  there  was  opposition  in  the  south  on  the 
ground  that  Oregon  would  strengthen  the  free  territory  at  the  expense 
of  the  slave  States.  As  late  as  1843,  Senator  McDuffie  of  South  Carolina, 
in  the  Senate,  scouted  the  idea  of  a  railroad  to  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia 
River,  and  was  thankful  that  God  in  his  mercy  had  placed  the  Rocky 
Mountains  in  the  way  so  as  to  make  this  country  unapproachable. 

On  the  other  hand,  Mr.  Jefferson,  especially  after  the  Lewis  and 
Clark  expedition,  was  profoundly  convinced  of  the  great  possibilities  in 
the  development  of  Oregon  and  its  availability  for  settlement.  It  clearly 
appears  in  the  discussions  in  Congress  that  as  soon  as  the  value  of  the 
country  became  known,  and  the  tides  of  immigration  began  to  pour  in, 
that  there  was  no  serious  question  as  to  the  policy  of  the  United  States, 
although  legislation  was  delayed  through  the  boundary  dispute  and  the 
complications  of  the  slavery  question. 

THE  AGREEMENT  OF  JOINT  OCCUPANCY. 

An  interesting  and  anomalous  feature  of  the  history  of  Oregon,  or 
rather  of  the  Oregon  territory,  is  the  fact  that  from  1819  after  the 
close  of  the  War  of  1812,  for  some  twenty-five  years,  the  country  remained 
under  the  joint  occupancy  of  two  nations,  England  and  the  United 
States,  both  asserting  title  to  the  entire  property,  and  without  prejudice 
to  their  respective  claims.  The  United  States  based  its  claim  upon 
discovery  and  exploration  of  the  Columbia  River  by  Gray  in  1792,  the 
explorations  of  Lewis  and  Clark,  the  settlement  at  Astoria,  and  subse- 
quently the  acquisition  of  the  rights  of  Spain  under  the  Florida  Treaty 
of  1819.  On  the  other  hand,  the  English  claimed  the  entire  country 
south  to  the  Columbia  River  by  virtue  of  the  actual  occupation  by  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company,  and  its  extensive  business  with  the  trappers 
and  furriers.  In  the  Louisiana  Purchase  of  1803  the  territory  ceded 
to  Spain  by  France  and  returned  to  France  in  1800,  was  sold  to  the 
United  States  by  what  was  in  effect  a  deed  of  quitclaim,  but  as  this 
territory  thus  acquired  was  bounded  by  the  Rocky  Mountains,  the 
purchase,  in  itself,  was  neither  then  nor  thereafter  asserted  as  a  basis 
for  the  title  of  the  United  States.  In  the  absence  of  actual  settlement 
and  occupation,  it  cannot  be  said  that  either  Great  Britain  or  the  United 
States  had  a  very  convincing  claim  against  the  other.  Dr.  Fiske,  in 
his  Astoria  address  of  1892,  well  said: 

"Neither  the  purchase  of  1803  nor  that  of  1819  would  have  gone  far 
towards  giving  Oregon  to  the  United  States,  unless  the  shadowy, 
metaphysical  claims  had  been  supplemented  by  the  solid  facts  of 
occupancy  and  possession." 

34 


After  the  War  of  1812  and  the  sale  of  the  Astoria  property  to  an 
English  company  thereafter  incorporated  with  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany, a  treaty  was  made  between  England  and  the  United  States  in 
1818  for  the  temporary  occupancy  of  the  territory  which  was  essentially 
anomalous,  and  would  have  been  impossible  except  under  the  peculiar 
conditions  prevailing  in  the  country.  It  was  virtually  an  agreement 
of  joint  occupancy,  without  prejudice  to  the  conflicting  claims  of  the 
two  contracting  powers,  as  to  the  boundary  of  their  respective  rights. 
Thus  in  this  treaty  it  was  provided,  among  other  things,  that  the  entire 
country  claimed  by  either  party,  and  the  navigation  of  all  rivers,  should 
be  free  and  open  for  ten  years  to  the  vessels,  citizens  and  subjects  of 
the  two  powers,  and  that  the  agreement  should  not  be  considered  to 
the  prejudice  of  any  claim  of  either  to  any  part  of  the  country.  This 
condition  of  joint  occupancy  was  secured  for  ten  years,  and  was  after- 
wards extended  indefinitely  until  either  of  the  two  powers  should  give 
notice  to  the  other  of  a  desire  to  terminate  it. 

During  this  period  of  joint  occupancy,  certainly  until  the  organiza- 
tion by  the  settlers  of  the  provisional  government,  hereafter  referred  to, 
the  authority  necessary  for  the  control  of  the  Indians,  and  the  small 
white  population,  was  exercised  by  Dr.  McLoughlin,  the  local  governor 
of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company.  It  was  fortunate  that  this  responsibility 
devolved  upon  one  who  was  exceptionally  qualified  for  its  judicial 
administration.  The  high  character  of  Dr.  McLoughlin,  his  considerate 
treatment  of  the  American  settlers  and  missionaries,  have  been  clearly 
shown  by  the  president  of  your  society,  and  will  cause  his  memory  to 
be  honored. 

The  joint  occupancy,  of  course,  in  the  nature  of  things,  could  only 
be  a  temporary  arrangement.  Missions  were  established  by  both 
Protestant  and  Catholics  for  the  conversion  of  the  Indians,  and  public 
opinion  in  the  United  States  became  aroused  to  the  possibilities  of  opening 
the  country  for  settlement.  Demands  then  sprang  up  for  the  termination 
of  the  joint  occupancy,  and  for  the  assertion  of  the  American  rights 
to  the  entire  Oregon  territory.  As  soon  as  immigration  began  to  pour 
in  it  was  obvious  that  there  was  an  irrepressible  conflict  between  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company,  on  the  one  hand,  in  keeping  the  lands  in  the 
hands  of  the  Indians  for  the  benefit  of  trappers  and  traders,  and  the 
demands  of  the  American  emigrants  on  the  other  hand,  who  required 
the  occupation,  settlement  and  cultivation  of  the  land  for  the  homes 
of  the  people.  These  forces  were  in  the  nature  of  things  irreconcilable, 
ard  further  continuance  of  the  joint  occupancy  became  impossible.  The 
discussion  of  the  subject  was  complicated  with  the  disputed  boundary, 
r.nd  the  joint  occupation  was  finally  terminated  by  Congress  in  1846 
in  connection  with  the  negotiation  for  the  settlement  of  the  boundaries. 

MR.  BENTON  AND  THE  JOINT  OCCUPANCY. 

As  a  Missourian  I  may  be  pardoned  my  State  pride  in  recalling 
the  far-sighted  and  all  but  prophetic  grasp  of  the  Oregon  question  in 
all  its  stages  by  Missouri's  great  statesman,  Thomas  Hart  Benton. 
Before  his  election  to  the  Senate  and  before  the  admission  of  Missouri 
as  a  State,  he  publicly  denounced  the  joint  occupancy  treaty  when  it 
was  first  made,  saying  that  it  was  time  that  western  men  had  some 
share  in  the  destinies  of  the  republic.  He  declared  there  could  be  no 
mutuality  in  the  use  of  the  Columbia  River,  and  that  the  effect  would 

35 


be  that  the  English  traders  would  drive  out  our  own.  He  proclaimed 
a  new  route  to  India  to  be  formed  by  the  rivers  Columbia,  Missouri 
and  Ohio,  which,  he  said,  would  open  a  channel  to  Asia  short,  safe, 
cheap  and  exclusively  American;  and  that  the  route,  though  interrupted 
by  several  portages,  would  present  in  some  respects  better  navigation 
than  the  Ohio,  and  would  be  shorter  by  20,000  miles  than  the  existing 
ocean  route  from  the  Atlantic  States  to  the  East  Indies.  This  was 
when  railroads  were  unknown.  In  the  Senate  he  opposed  the  renewal 
of  the  joint  occupancy  in  1828,  and  introduced  resolutions  in  secret  session 
against  it,  declaring  in  favor  of  a  settlement  on  the  basis  of  the  forty- 
ninth  degree  as  a  permanent  boundary.  He  was  the  leader  of  the 
discussion  on  the  final  termination  of  the  joint  occupancy,  saying  that 
the  country  could  have  but  one  people,  one  interest,  one  government, 
and  that  people  should  be  American,  that  interest  ours  and  that  govern- 
ment republican. 

THE  "54-40"  CLAIM  AND  THE  BOUNDARY  SETTLEMENT. 

The  termination  of  the  joint  occupancy  was  closely  associated  with 
the  assertion  of  the  American  rights  in  the  Oregon  territory  up  to  the 
Russian  boundary  line  of  54  degrees  40  minutes,  and  this  was  caused 
by  the  growing  recognition  of  the  value  of  the  Oregon  territory  for 
occupation  and  settlement. 

In  the  words  of  Mr.  Benton,  the  great  event  of  this  time  was  the 
movement  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  race  to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  beginning  in 
1840  and  largely  increasing  in  1843,  and  this,  "like  all  other  great 
immigrations  and  settlements  of  that  race  on  our  continent,  was  the 
act  of  the  people  going  forward  without  government,  aid  or  maintenance, 
establishing  their  position  and  compelling  the  government  to  follow  them 
with  its  shield  and  spread  it  over  them." 

It  was  at  this  time  of  the  uncertainty  of  the  titles  of  the  respective 
countries  that  the  assertion  was  made  of  the  American  right  to  the 
whole  Oregon  country  up  to  the  Russian  border  of  54  degrees  40  minutes, 
and  this  became  a  political  issue,  which  was  adopted  by  the  Democratic 
convention  of  1844,  in  its  platform,  whereon  President  Polk  was  elected. 

At  one  time  this  issue  threatened  war  with  England,  and  the  danger 
was  the  greater  because  it  was  complicated  with  tne  other  political  issues 
of  the  time.  War  with  Mexico  was  then  impending  through  the  annexa- 
tion of  Texas,  which  the  south  wanted  for  the  extension  of  the  slave 
territory,  and  certain  politicians  of  the  west  demanded  the  whole  Oregon 
country,  even  at  the  risk  of  war  with  England. 

This  boundary  question  was  aggravated  by  the  demand  for  the 
termination  of  the  joint  occupancy.  It  may  be  true,  as  suggested  by 
Dr.  Fiske  in  his  essay  on  Andrew  Jackson,  that  the  movement  of 
American  immigration  into  the  Oregon  territory  would  in  time  have 
given  the  United  States  the  entire  country  up  to  the  line  of  54  degrees 
40  minutes.  It  was  the  wise  counsel  of  Mr.  Calhoun  to  leave  the 
adjustment  of  the  boundary  question,  as  well  as  the  joint  occupancy, 
to  the  working  of  these  silent  forces  which  would  make  the  country 
American.  But  such  speculations  are  idle,  for  the  United  States  was 
at  that  time  not  only  in  no  position  to  make  war  on  Great  Britain  over 
the  northwest  boundary,  as  it  had  neither  army  nor  navy  on  the  Pacific 
Coast,  nor  the  means  of  transportation  which  could  enable  it  to  cope 
with  Great  Britain;  but  the  United  States  was  really  estopped  in  good 

36 


morals  by  its  own  prior  assertion  of  the  line  of  49  degrees  as  the  limit 
of  its  northern  claim.  Great  Britain  claimed  to  the  line  of  the  Columbia 
River  by  reason  of  actual  occupation. 

President  Polk,  when  elected,  was  placed  in  an  embarrassing  position 
through  the  party  platform  which  had  demanded  the  54-40  line,  and 
when  a  treaty  was  negotiated  with  England  upon  the  boundary  line  of 
49  degrees  he  resorted  to  the  unusual  step  of  submitting  to  the  Senate 
the  proposal  before  the  treaty  was  effected.  The  treaty  finally  made  on 
June  15,  1846,  settled  the  northern  boundary  line  at  49  degrees.  In 
the  meantime  the  clamor  for  war  had  subsided  and  the  settlement  was 
recognized  as  a  wise  and  just  one.  Mr.  Elaine  in  his  "Recollections," 
says  that  the  controversy  over  this  boundary  line  really  consisted  of 
bluffing  on  both  sides  and  was  not  altogether  creditable  to  either  country. 
The  settlement  was  the  compromise  of  the  conflicting  claims;  that  of 
Great  Britain  to  the  line  of  the  Columbia  River  was  not  allowed,  nor 
was  that  of  the  United  States  to  the  whole  territory  drained  by  the 
Columbia,  as  the  line  of  49  degrees  gave  the  upper  waters  of  the  river 
and  the  country  drained  by  it  to  Great  Britain.  Mr.  Benton,  though  he 
had  been  an  earnest  advocate  of  the  termination  of  the  joint  occupancy, 
ridiculed  the  54-40  provision  in  the  platform  of  1844,  and  said  it  was 
the  party  platform  for  the  campaign,  and  that  its  architects  knew  but 
little  of  the  northwestern  coast  or  its  diplomatic  history. 

This  treaty  of  June,  1846,  provided  that  the  boundary  line  should 
oe  the  forty-ninth  parallel  to  the  middle  of  the  channel  which  separates 
Vancouver  Island  from  the  mountains,  thence  southerly  through  the 
middle  of  the  channel  through  Juan  de  Fuca  Straits  to  the  Pacific  Ocean, 
the  navigation  of  the  channel  and  straits  to  be  free  and  open  to  both 
parties.  Differences  afterwards  arose  as  to  what  cnannel  was  meant, 
so  that  it  remained  unsettled  to  which  government  Washington  Sound 
and  the  islands  in  it  uelonged.  An  amicable  arrangement  was  effected 
in  1859  by  which  the  two  governments  jointly  occupied  the  island,  the 
United  States  having  a  garrison  on  the  south  and  Great  Britain  on  the 
north.  Under  the  Treaty  of  Washington  in  1871  this  difference  was 
referred  to  the  Emperor  of  Germany,  who  decided  for  the  United  Stales 
in  1872. 

In  this  connection  as  pertaining  to  what  was  once  the  Oregon  country, 
though  not  the  State  of  Oregon,  should  be  mentioned  the  subsequent 
amicable  adjustment  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  of 
the  country  between  Alaska  and  British  Columbia.  The  peaceful  settle- 
ment of  these  boundary  questions,  involving,  as  they  did,  great  issues 
which  might  have  resulted  in  war,  make  a  happy  page  in  the  history 
of  Oregon,  as  well  as  of  our  common  country,  to  which  we  may  look 
with  pride  and  satisfaction.  May  all  international  controversies  be  thus 
adjusted,  not  through  armies  and  battleships,  but  through  peaceful  arbi- 
tration, "in  the  parliament  of  manKind  and  the  federation  of  the  world." 

THE  PROVISIONAL  GOVERNMENT. 

A  most  interesting  period  of  the  history  of  Oregon  is  the  so-called 
Provisional  Government,  which  was  established  by  the  settlers  during 
the  later  years  of  the  joint  occupancy  and  its  termination,  until  the 
organization  of  the  territorial  government  in  1849.  A  body  of  laws 
was  adopted  by  the  joint  action  of  the  emigrants  of  the  State  and  of 
British  subjects,  which,  amended  from  time  to  time,  was  in  effect  the 

37 


organic  law  until  the  territorial  organization  by  the  United  States  in 
1849.  At  first  there  was  not  a  single  executive  head,  but  an  executive 
committee  of  three;  and  no  provision  for  taxation,  the  expense  of  admin- 
istration being  paid  uy  voluntary  subscription.  ^».s  the  population 
increased,  these  primitive  arrangements  proved  inadequate,  and  a  gov- 
ernor was  elected,  and  that  essential  of  organized  government,  a  system 
of  taxation,  was  provided. 

This  improvised  government  is  an  interesting  study  for  political 
philosophers.  The  government  rested  literally  upon  the  consent  of  the 
governed.  It  was  an  illustration  of  the  social  contract  to  which  such 
philosophers  as  Locke  and  Rousseau  ascribed  the  origin  of  all  govern- 
ment. These  settlers  in  a  wild  country,  separated  from  civilized  States 
by  thousands  of  miles  and  all  but  impassaole  mountains,  surrounded  by 
savage  Indians,  found  it  necessary  to  surrender  in  part  their  individual 
liberty  for  their  mutual  protection,  the  maintenance  of  order,  and  security 
of  property. 

An  anomalous  feature  of  this  provisional  government  was  its  creation 
and  maintenance  by  men  who  owed  allegiance  to  different  sovereignties, 
whose  relations  were  at  times  strained  even  to  the  point  of  threatened 
war.  The  oath  of  the  officials  of  this  government  expressly  reserved 
the  duty  owing  as  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  or  as  a  subject  of 
Great  Britain. 

The  laws  of  this  provisional  government  show  clearly  that  however 
primitive  and  wild  the  conditions  in  which  they  are  placed,  men  of 
Anglo-Saxon  ancestry  carry  with  them  as  their  inheritance  the  funda- 
mental conceptions  of  liberty  and  justice.  Thus,  in  this  social  compact, 
the  freedom  of  religious  belief  and  worship,  the  right  of  habeas  corpus, 
and  trial  by  jury  were  guaranteed.  Justice  and  the  utmost  good  faith 
were  enjoined  in  the  treatment  of  the  Indians,  whose  lands  and  property 
wore  not  to  be  taken  without  their  consent.  Education  was  encouraged 
and  slavery  was  prohibited.  Provision  was  made  for  the  prompt  adminis- 
tration of  justice  and  for  regulating  and  recording  land  claims. 

.Factional  differences  may  have  developed  among  these  settlers 
struggling  with  the  hard  conditions  of  pioneer  life  as  they  have  developed 
in  modern  settled  communities.  Nevertheless,  however,  the  successful 
organization  and  wise  administration  of  this  provisional  government, 
whereunder  life  and  property  were  secured,  justice  orderly  administered, 
the  settlements  successfully  defended  from  the  Indians,  and  the  national 
prejudices  of  alien  populations  effectually  controlled  during  these  critical 
years — will  remain  for  all  time  signal  proof  of  the  capacity  of  the  Oregon 
pioneers  for  self-government. 

THE  ORGANIZATION  OF  OREGON  AS  A  TERRITORY. 

The  settlement  of  the  boundary  question  and  the  termination  of  joint 
occupancy  left  the  Oregon  country,  that  is,  including  the  territory  south 
of  the  forty-ninth  degree  and  between  the  Rocky  Mountains  and  the 
Pacific,  an  unorganized  territory  of  the  United  States.  During  the  period 
of  the  settlement  of  the  boundary  question,  emigrants  had  been  pouring 
in  through  the  passes  of  the  Rocky  Mountains,  so  that  there  were  now 
several  thousand  American  inhabitants  who  had  settled  upon  the  land 
and  were  living  only  under  the  laws  made  by  themselves,  and  the  demand 
for  Federal  protection  by  formal  organization  as  a  territory  became 
imperative. 

38 


It  was  at  this  time  that  this  recognized  necessity  for  the  organization 
of  Oregon  as  a  territory  came  in  conflict  with  the  new-developing  slavery 
agitation  which  finally  ended  in  the  Civil  War. 

The  Oregon  question  which  was  made  a  national  party  issue  in  1844 
had  hardly  been  definitely  settled  by  the  adjustment  of  the  boundary 
dispute,  when  another  Oregon  question  was  presented,  which  was  before 
Congress  in  some  form  from  1844  until  the  final  enactment  in  1848. 
Oregon  was  north  of  the  36  degrees  30  minutes  line  rixed  by  the  Missouri 
Compromise  in  1820,  and  was,  therefore,  within  the  country  wherein 
slavery  was  prohibited.  But  when  the  boundary  question  was  finally 
settled  and  it  was  necessary  to  provide  for  a  territorial  organization, 
the  political  situation  was  complicated  by  the  acquisition  of  the  territory 
resulting  from  the  Mexican  War,  that  is,  Texas,  New  Mexico  and  Cali- 
fornia. The  situation  was  still  further  complicated  by  the  fact  that 
Mexico  had  abolished  slavery  and  the  residents  of  New  Mexico  and 
California  both  demanded  the  exclusion  of  slavery  from  their  respective 
territories.  While  the  line  of  36  degrees  30  minutes  fixed  by  the  Missouri 
Compromise  did  not  touch  Oregon  it  did  run  through  New  Mexico  and 
Southern  California.  The  Wilmot  Proviso  had  been  introduced  in 
Congress  and  provided  tnat  slavery  should  not  exist  in  any  part  of  the 
territory  acquired  from  Mexico.  The  new  Oregon  question  was  presented 
by  the  introduction  of  the  resolutions  of  Mr.  Calhoun  in  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States,  that  the  territories  were  the  common  property  of 
the  people  of  the  United  States,  and  that  the  slave  holders  of  the  south 
had  the  same  right  to  take  their  property,  that  is,  their  slaves,  into 
such  territory  as  the  emigrants  from  the  north  had  to  take  their  chattels 
or  their  livestock  or  any  other  form  of  personal  property.  The  logic 
of  these  resolutions  therefore  prevented  any  exclusion  of  slavery  in  the 
territory  of  Oregon,  though  it  had  been  excluded  by  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise and  by  the  provisional  government  of  the  settlers.  The  northern 
Democrats  were  not  prepared  to  follow  Mr.  Calhoun  in  this  position, 
and  a  number  of  other  Senators  had  at  first  hesitated  to  support  him. 
It  cannot  be  denied,  however,  that  upon  the  assumption  that  a  slave 
holder  had  the  same  right  in  his  slave  property  as  others  had  in  their 
property,  his  position  was  logical.  It  was  thereafter,  in  effect,  affirmed 
by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  the  Dred  Scott  case,  and 
was  only  settled  in  the  time  of  the  Civil  War  by  the  act  of  Congress 
which  excluded  slavery  from  all  of  the  territory  of  the  United  States. 
In  fact  the  issue  was  only  settled  by  the  final  arbitrament  of  civil  war. 
The  debate  of  this  Oregon  question  was  really  the  beginning  of  the 
modern  slavery  agitation.  It  would  serve  no  purpose  to  recall  the  heated 
debates  in  Congress  growing  out  of  the  introduction  of  these  resolutions. 
The  position  of  the  advocates  of  the  organization  of  Oregon  was  effectively 
stated  by  Mr.  Benton,  when  he  said  that  Oregon  was  left  without  govern- 
ment, without  laws,  while  at  that  moment  she  was  engaged  in  war  with 
the  Indians.  And  he  added,  "She  is  three  thousand  miles  from  the 
metropolitan  seat  of  government,  and  although  she  had  set  up  for  herself 
a  provisional  government,  and  taken  on  herself  the  enactment  of  laws, 
it  is  left  to  the  will  of  every  individual  to  determine  for  himself  whether 
he  will  obey  those  laws  or  not." 

The  organization  of  Oregon  with  the  exclusion  of  slavery  was  finally 
effected  by  the  adoption  of  the  provisional  laws  enacted  by  the  territory 
and  also  subjecting  the  territory  to  the  provisions  of  the  ordinance  of 

39 


1787,  which  excluded  slavery  from  the  northwest  territory.  An  attempt 
was  made  to  defeat  the  bill  by  filibustering,  but  it  was  finally  passed 
on  the  last  day  of  the  session,  August  14,  1848,  through  the  alertness 
of  Senator  Benton  in  seizing  an  opportunity  to  call  for  a  vote  on  the  bill. 
It  was  promptly  signed  by  President  Polk,  who  announced  his  approval 
in  a  message,  saying  that  if  it  had  prohibited  slavery  south  of  the  line 
of  36  degrees  30  minutes  fixed  by  the  Missouri  Compromise,  his  action 
would  have  been  different. 

The  resolutions  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  though  never  brought  to  a  vote  in 
the  Senate,  proved  a  veritable  pandora  box  in  the  politics  of  the  country. 
When  introduced  in  the  Legislature  of  Missouri  and  adopted,  they 
were  repudiated  by  Mr.  Benton,  and  this  resulted  in  a  division  of  the 
Democratic  party  in  that  State  and  the  retirement  of  Mr.  Benton  from 
the  Senate  three  years  later. 

On  the  approval  of  the  Oregon  territorial  organization  act,  General 
Joseph  Lane  of  Indiana,  distinguished  in  the  Mexican  War,  and  subse- 
quently delegate  in  Congress,  also  Senator,  and  candidate  for  Vice- 
President,  was  appointed  Governor  of  the  Territory;  civil  government 
was  thereupon  inaugurated,  and  for  the  first  time  courts  under  govern- 
mental authority  were  organized.  There  had  been  no  legal  basis  for 
private  land  titles  in  Oregon,  and  it  was  not  until  the  enactment  by 
Congress  of  the  Donation  Land  Law  on  September  27,  1850,  that  the  pos- 
session claims  theretofore  entered  were  given  any  legal  sanction.  It  is  to 
the  lasting  honor  of  Oregon  that  the  injustice  done  in  this  law  to  Dr. 
McLoughlin  was  subsequently  officially  acknowledged,  and  all  possible 
reparation  made  by  the  Legislature  after  the  admission  to  Statehood. 

THE  ADMISSION  OF  OREGON  INTO  THE  UNION. 

The  territorial  organization,  despite  the  perils  and  sufferings  of 
Indian  warfare,  was  followed  by  a  rapid  increase  in  population,  and 
under  the  same  self-reliant  pioneer  spirit,  which  had  organized  the  pro- 
visional government  of  1843,  a  constitutional  convention  was  held,  with- 
out any  authority  from  Congress,  and  a  Constitution  was  adopted  by 
the  people  November  9,  1857.  On  the  14th  of  February,  1859,  the  act 
admitting  Oregon  was  approved  by  President  Buchanan,  and  it  was 
admitted  as  the  thirty-third  State  in  the  Federal  Union. 

During  the  ten  years  of  territorial  organization  events  of  far- 
reaching  importance  had  been  enacted  on  the  broader  national  stage. 
It  was  not  the  same  Oregon  which  had  been  admitted  in  1848,  as  Wash- 
ington with  its  present  boundaries  had  been  carved  from  it  in  1853. 
The  agitation  of  the  slavery  question  had  gone  on  unceasing  since  1848. 
The  admission  of  California,  the  Clay  Compromise,  the  Fugitive  Slave 
Act  of  1850,  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act  of  1854,  the  Dred  Scott  decision 
of  1857,  the  border  war  in  Kansas,  the  development  of  anti-slavery  senti- 
ment in  the  northern  States — all  these  had  followed  in  rapid  succession. 
This  profound  political  revolution  had  had  its  effect  upon  party  organiza- 
tions. The  old  Whig  party,  after  its  crushing  national  defeat  in  1852, 
had  disappeared  from  the  national  arena.  A  new  party  organization 
sprang  into  existence  opposing  the  slavery  extension  in  the  territories, 
while  a  division  sprang  up  in  the  Democratic  party  in  the  struggle 
over  Kansas,  a  large  section  of  the  northern  Democrats  following  Senator 
Douglas  in  his  demand  for  popular  sovereignty  in  the  territories,  so 
that  the  issue  of  slavery  should  be  determined  in  the  territories  by  vote 

40 


of  the  people  therein.  When  the  bill  for  the  admission  of  Oregon  was 
presented  in  the  second  session  of  the  Thirty-fourth  Congress  in  1859, 
Senator  Douglas  had  just  returned  to  the  Senate  from  his  successful 
campaign  for  re-election  in  Illinois,  where  he  had  been  defeated  in  the 
popular  vote  by  Abraham  Lincoln,  who  had  thus  risen  into  national  prom- 
inence as  the  leader  of  the  new  anti-slavery  opinion  of  the  country. 

In  this  complex  and  inflamed  condition  of  national  politics,  Oregon 
made  its  application  for  admission  as  a  State  in  1858.  As  slavery  had 
been  excluded  in  its  original  organization,  as  a  territory,  so  it  was 
excluded  in  its  State  Constitution.  This  Constitution  also  contained 
clauses,  Article  I,  Section  35,  and  Article  II,  Section  6,  which  have  since 
been  nullified  by  the  fourteenth  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  (and  which  I  understand  have  never  been  enforced,  and 
in  fact  have  been  repealed),  not  only  excluding  free  negroes  and  mulattoes 
from  voting,  but  also  from  making  contracts  or  living  in  the  State. 

In  the  popular  vote  upon  the  Constitution,  these  clauses  prohibiting 
slavery  and  excluding  free  negroes,  were  separately  voted  upon.  Thus, 
on  the  slavery  question,  there  were  2,645  for  and  7,727  against  slavery, 
while  upon  the  exclusion  of  free  negroes  there  were  8,040  in  favor  of 
the  prohibition  and  1,087  against;  and  upon  the  adoption  of  the  Con- 
stitution, the  ayes  were  7,195  and  the  noes  3,195.  It  was  thus  clearly 
indicated  that  the  opposition  to  slavery  was  mainly  upon  economic  reasons, 
that  is,  it  was  deemed  unsuited  to  the  climate  and  industries  of  the 
State,  while  the  feeling  of  opposition  to  negroes  was  then  held  in  com- 
mon with  the  other  free  States  of  the  Northwest,  though  it  is  said  that 
some  voted  for  the  exclusion  clause  as  a  concession  to  the  strong  pro- 
slavery  sentiment. 

The  slavery  question  as  a  national  issue  now  came  to  the  front 
on  this  question  of  the  admission  of  Oregon,  as  it  had  on  the  question 
of  its  territorial  organizations  ten  years  before.  But  the  far-reaching 
changes  of  the  intervening  period  had  so  complicated  the  existing  party 
politics,  that  although  Oregon  applied  for  admission  as  a  free  State, 
the  opposition  in  Congress  to  her  admission  came  mainly  from  the  anti- 
slavery  and  not  from  the  pro-slavery  members.  It  is  true  that  another 
free  State  added  to  the  Union,  making  the  number  18  to  15,  still  more 
effectively  destroyed  the  equilibrium  between  the  free  and  slave  States, 
which  had  been  lost  by  the  admission  of  California,  followed  by  Minne- 
sota; and  it  was  seen  that  the  admission  of  Kansas  could  not  be  long 
deferred.  No  slave  State  had  been  admitted  since  Texas  in  1848,  and  the 
march  of  events  had  shown  that  it  was  not  probable  that  any  new  slave 
State  could  be  created.  In  the  admission  of  Texas  it  had  been  provided 
as  a  concession  to  the  pro-slavery  demands  that  three  new  States  could 
be  made  out  of  that  territory,  but  the  sentiment  of  State  pride  has  made 
it  impossible  to  carry  this  into  effect,  and  no  serious  attempt  was  made 
to  take  advantage  of  it  during  the  period  of  slavery  agitation.  So  hope- 
less, therefore,  had  become  the  struggle  against  the  increasing  pre- 
dominance of  the  free  States  that  any  opposition  to  the  admission  of 
Oregon  as  a  free  State  seems  to  have  been  overborne  by  the  then  con- 
trolling political  conditions. 

It  was  known  in  1859,  when  the  bill  for  the  admission  of  Oregon 
was  pending,  that  the  State  in  existing  party  divisions  was  aligned  with 
the  administration  wing  of  the  Democratic  party.  Two  Democratic 
Senators  had  been  elected,  one  of  them  General  Joseph  Lane,  who  had 

41 


been  Governor  of  the  territory,  and  thereafter  candidate  for  Vice- 
President.  The  Thirty-fourth  Congress,  then  holding  its  second  session, 
had  been  elected  in  1856,  and  was  Democratic  in  both  Senate  and  House. 
The  division  between  Senator  Douglas  and  the  administration  and  the 
growth  of  the  Republican  party  had  resulted  in  very  material  gains  for 
the  latter  in  the  election  of  Congressmen  in  1858,  so  that  there  was 
doubt  as  to  the  political  control  of  the  next  House  of  Representatives. 

The  approaching  Presidential  election  of  1860  furnished  another 
controlling  political  consideration.  In  the  then  not  improbable  con- 
tingency of  the  election  of  the  next  President  devolving  upon  Congress 
on  account  of  the  failure  of  either  party  to  secure  a  majority  of  the 
electoral  college,  the  vote  of  Oregon  would  equal  that  of  New  York  or 
any  other  State,  both  in  the  vote  in  the  House  for  President  and  in 
the  Senate  for  Vice-President. 

The  opposition  to  the  admission  was  mainly  from  the  anti-slavery 
sources,  and  was  based  chiefly  on  the  ground  of  the  discrimination 
against  the  negroes  and  the  alleged  insufficiency  of  population.  The 
vote  on  the  admission  was  somewhat  on  party  lines;  114  to  108  in  the 
House,  and  35  to  17  in  the  Senate.  The  anti-slavery  view  of  the 
Constitution  of  Oregon  is  found  in  the  work  of  former  Vice-President 
Henry  Wilson,  "The  History  of  the  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power." 
He  says: 

"In  1857  Oregon  framed  a  Constitution  and  applied  for  admission 
to  the  Union.  Though  the  Constitution  was  in  form  free,  it  was  thor- 
oughly imbued  with  the  spirit  of  slavery,  and  though  four-fifths  of  the 
votes  cast  were  for  the  rejection  of  slavery,  there  were  some  seven- 
eighths  for  the  article  excluding  entirely  people  of  color.  As  their 
leaders  were  mainly  pro-slavery  men,  it  is  probable  that  the  reason  why 
they  excluded  slavery  from  the  Constitution  was  their  fear  of  defeat 
in  their  application  for  admission." 

While  it  is  true  that  the  sympathies  of  the  people  of  Oregon  were 
then  largely  with  the  south,  the  conclusion  is  unwarranted  that  the 
prohibition  of  slavery  was  inserted  for  the  purpose  of  securing  admission. 
Slavery  was  excluded  in  Oregon  as  it  was  in  California,  for  the  reason 
that  it  was  admittedly  unsuited  to  the  economic  and  industrial  as  well 
as  the  climatic  conditions  of  the  State.  Though  the  Oregon  people  may 
have  had  a  racial  dislike  for  the  negro,  they  were  not  alone  in  this, 
as  the  Constitution  of  Minnesota  admitted  a  short  time  before,  contained 
substantially  the  same  provisions,  as  did  the  Constitutions  of  other 
northern  States. 

OREGON  IN  1859. 

Oregon  thus  admitted  into  Statehood  was  the  last  State  admitted 
before  secession  actually  began,  as  Kansas,  the  next  State,  was 
not  admitted  until  January,  1861,  when  several  of  the  States  had  already 
seceded.  Oregon  was  therefore  the  last  admitted  before  the  Civil  War 
by  the  representatives  of  all  the  States  of  the  Union. 

The  contrast  of  the  Oregon  of  1859  with  the  Oregon  of  1909  is  of 
course  interesting,  as  we  compare  the  scattered  pioneer  settlements, 
with  the  stage  coach  and  pony  express  of  the  earlier  date,  with  the 
wealthy  and  prosperous  State  with  all  the  appliances  of  modern  civili- 
zation of  the  present.  In  a  broader  point  of  view,  however,  far  more 

42 


impressive  is  the  contrast  when  we  compare  the  civilized  world  of  1859 
with  that  of  1909.  In  no  half  century  of  the  world's  history  has  there 
been  such  an  accumulation  of  wealth,  such  industrial  and  material 
progress,  such  a  control  by  men  of  the  mysterious  forces  of  nature, 
such  an  advance  in  education  and  all  the  refinements  of  civilization, 
such  an  uplifting  of  the  masses  in  the  comforts  of  living,  and  I  may 
add  such  an  awakening  of  the  moral  conscience  and  the  growth  of 
humanitarian  sympathies  of  mankind,  and  such  a  development  of  the 
power  of  public  opinion  in  the  government  of  the  world. 

The  momentous  changes  in  the  world  politics  in  the  last  half  century 
may  be  realized  when  we  recall  that  in  1859  neither  the  French  Republic 
nor  the  German  Empire,  nor  the  Kingdom  of  Italy,  had  come  into 
existence.  Louis  Napoleon  was  Emperor  of  France;  the  Pope  ruled  the 
States  of  the  church;  a  Bourbon  King  reigned  over  Naples  and  Sicily, 
and  Austria  over  Venice  and  northern  Italy.  Japan  was  opening  her 
ports  for  the  first  time  to  the  markets  of  the  world,  England  had  sup- 
pressed the  Sepoy  insurrection  in  India,  Livingston  was  exploring  Africa, 
and  the  modern  "Spheres  of  Influence"  of  the  Great  Powers  in  the  Dark 
Continent  were  unknown.  The  world  of  1859  was  filled  with  wars  and 
rumors  of  wars.  Russia  was  warring  against  the  tribes  of  the  Caucasus, 
Spain  against  Morocco,  England  and  France  were  threatening  war 
against  China,  the  war  with  Austria  against  Italy  and  France,  with 
its  far-reaching  results,  was  impending.  Mexico  was  distracted  with 
civil  war,  and  the  border  war  of  Kansas,  with  the  John  Brown  Raid  of 
1859  foreshadowed  the  coming  struggle  in  the  United  States.  Both  this 
country  and  Europe  in  1859  were  recovering  from  the  financial  panic 
of  1857  and  the  resulting  business  depression.  The  Atlantic  cable  had 
been  successfully  laid,  but  the  operation  was  soon  interrupted  and  ocean 
telegraphic  communication  not  resumed  until  several  years  later.  It 
was  in  1859  that  petroleum  wells  were  first  sunk  in  the  United  States, 
and  no  one  ever  dreamed  of  the  far-reaching  consequences  to  flow  from 
that  discovery. 

Turning  aside  from  the  world  of  action  to  that  of  scientific  thought, 
there  was  at  the  time  of  the  admission  of  Oregon  an  event  of  profound 
importance  in  literature  and  science,  the  publication  of  the  famous  book 
of  Darwin,  the  "Origin  of  Species,"  the  semi-centennial  whereof  has 
been  recently  commemorated.  This  was  indeed  an  epoch-making  book, 
which  worked  a  mighty  revolution  in  scientific  thought  profoundly  per- 
meating history,  religion  and  all  studies  of  science  and  politics.  The 
centennial  of  the  birth  of  the  author  coincides  with  that  of  Abraham 
Lincoln,  which  was  celebrated  only  three  days  ago;  thus,  almost  coincid- 
ing with  the  event  we  are  now  commemorating. 

Time  will  not  permit  me  to  dwell  on  the  changes  which  came  to 
Oregon  in  the  advance  of  civilization  in  this  half  century  of  your  State- 
hood. In  no  State  has  there  been  more  marvelous  material  development 
and  more  substantial  progress  in  all  the  refinements  of  an  advanced 
civilization. 

In  considering  the  relation  of  Oregon  to  the  Union,  the  peculiar 
isolated  condition  of  your  State  at  the  time  of  its  admission  and  during 
the  few  years  succeeding,  should  be  clearly  understood.  It  was  separated 
from  the  East  by  lofty  and  almost  impassable  mountains.  The  only 
communication  with  the  older  States  and  the  seat  of  government  was 

43 


by  difficult  and  hazardous  wagon  trails  through  the  territory  of  hostile 
Indians,  or  by  a  circuitous  route  through  Panama,  involving  a  long 
voyage  over  two  oceans.  The  Great  American  Desert  of  the  geographies 
of  that  time,  extended  as  a  barrier  from  the  middle  line  of  Kansas  to 
the  Rocky  Mountains.  Though  railroads  had  been  built  in  the  east,  and 
as  far  west  as  the  Mississippi,  the  system  was  still  in  its  infancy,  and 
comparatively  little  progress  had  been  made  west  of  that  river;  and 
though  the  national  political  platform  of  1860  demanded  the  extension 
of  railroads  to  the  Pacific  Coast,  such  connections  were  not  made  until 
some  years  after  the  close  of  the  Civil  War.  Telegraphic  communica- 
tion from  the  east  to  the  Pacific  Coast  was  not  opened  until  late  in 
1861,  and  then  over  twenty  days  were  required  for  the  transmission 
of  intelligence  by  pony  express  from  the  Mississippi  River,  that  is,  the 
outpost  of  railroad  or  telegraphic  communication. 

This  isolation  was  emphasized  by  the  constant  peril  of  Indians  which 
threatened  the  scattered  settlements  with  all  the  horrors  of  savage  war- 
fare. Before  and  after  the  admission  to  Statehood  and  during  and  after 
the  Civil  War,  the  citizens  of  Oregon  were  compelled  to  defend  themselves 
against  the  attacks  by  the  Indians  who  surrounded  them;  and  at  th  ^ 
time,  in  1861,  they  looked  in  vain  for  protection  to  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment three  thousand  miles  away,  wnich  could  not  help  them  if  it  would. 

OREGON  AND  THE  CIVIL  WAR. 

At  the  outbreak  of  the  Civil  War,  this  geographical  isolation  placed 
Oregon  in  a  peculiarly  anomalous  condition,  which  was  a  severe  test 
to  the  patriotic  impulses  of  the  people.  The  seat  of  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment was  over  three  thousand  miles  away  and  was  necessarily  power- 
less in  the  presence  of  civil  war  to  protect  isolated  settlements  from  the 
perils  of  frontier  life.  The  government  which  cannot  protect  its  people 
obviously  fails  of  its  primary  purpose.  We  cannot  realize  now  in  tht 
presence  of  the  tremendous  forces  involved  in  our  interstate  commercial 
relations  in  this  age  of  steam  and  electricity  how  much  they  contribute 
to  and  make  effective  the  sentiment  of  nationality  throughout  the  country, 
binding  the  widely  separated  parts  of  the  Union  together.  Indeed,  it 
is  difficult  to  see  how  these  sections  of  a  great  continent,  separated  by 
mountains  and  deserts,  with  their  widely  diversified  interests,  could  have 
been  permanently  united  without  the  operation  of  these  mighty  forces 
which  bound  all  parts  of  our  country  from  ocean  to  ocean,  from  Canada 
to  the  Gulf,  with  bands  of  steel  rail  and  copper  wire,  annihilating  time 
and  space  in  an  indestructible  .mion  of  indestructible  States. 

We  all  know  that  one  of  the  most,  if  not  the  most,  powerful  of  the 
motives  which  solidified  the  western  people  in  the  support  of  the  Union, 
was  the  universal  recognition  of  the  necessity  for  the  control  by  one 
power  of  the  Mississippi  River  and  its  tributaries,  including  the-  vast 
territory  from  the  Alleghenies  to  the  Rocky  Mountains.  It  was  easy 
to  be  a  Union  man — one  could  not  but  be  one  in  the  New  England  and 
middle  States,  with  their  well  developed  industrial  and  commercial 
relations,  or  in  the  great  Mississippi  valley  where  the  future  destinies 
seemed  dependent  upon  the  control  oy  the  national  power  of  that  mighty 
system  of  waters  rolling  to  the  sea. 

Far  different  was  it  with  the  people  of  Oregon  and  elsewhere  on 
the  Pacific  Ocean  in  those  dark  days  of  1861.  A  majority  of  the  people 

44 


had  come  from  the  southern  states*,  and  although  they  realized  that 
economic  considerations  prevented  the  introduction  of  slavery  into  their 
own  State,  many  of  them  strongly  sympathized  with  the  southern  demands 
for  equal  rights  in  the  territories,  and  even  more  in  the  struggle  of  the 
south  in  defense  of  their  States,  and  their  home  institutions,  against 
invading  armies.  In  the  election  of  1860  Mr.  Lincoln  carried  the  State 
by  a  small  plurality — 270 — over  Ereckinridge,  the  vote  for  the  latter 
considerably  exceeding  the  vote  for  Mr.  Douglas.  Oregon  was  the 
only  northern  State  in  which  the  vote  for  Breckinridge  exceeded  the 
vote  for  Douglas.  The  leader  of  the  theretofore  dominant  party  in 
the  State,  who  had  been  the  territorial  governor  and  the  first  United 
States  Senator,  was  candidate  for  Vice-President  on  the  Breckinridge 
ticket. 

In  this  connection  it  is  an  interesting  fact  in  the  political  considera- 
tion of  that  time  that  it  was  understood  as  this  campaign  of  1860 
progressed,  that  the  only  possible  hope  of  defeating  Mr.  Lincoln  in 
view  of  the  divided  Democratic  party,  was  in  carrying  enough  of  the 
northern  States  by  Mr.  Douglas,  or  by  fusion  tickets  supported  in  some 
of  the  close  States  by  the  different  anti-Republican  parHes,  so  as  to 
prevent  a  choice  in  the  electoral  college;  thus  throwing  the*  election  into 
Congress.  In  that  event,  as  no  one  candidate  in  the  then  complexion  of 
Congress  could  command  a  majority  of  the  votes  by  States  in  the  House 
of  Representatives,  Mr.  Lane  »vould  doubtless  be  elected  Vice-President 
by  a  Democratic  Senate,  the  latter  would  succeed  to  the  Presidency  in 
accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution.  In  view  of  the 
recognized  certainty  that  none  of  the  southern  States  would  give  their 
votes  to  Mr.  Lincoln,  this  seemed  a  not  improbable  contingency,  and  it 
afforded  the  only  chance  of  defeating  Mr.  Lincoln.  Thus,  in  this  great 
conflict  of  1860  the  Senator  for  Oregon,  who  was  candidate  for  Vice- 
President  of  the  United  States,  would  have  been  elected  President  had 
the  Republicans  failed  to  carry  a  majority  of  the  electoral  college. 

Some  went  from  Oregon  to  serve  in  the  Confederate  army.  Under 
these  circumstances  it  was  inevitable,  not  only  that  there  should  be 
sympathy  with  the  South  in  its  struggle  for  independence,  but  also  that 
there  should  develop  a  separatist  feeling;  that  men  should  argue  that  in 
the  probable  dissolution  of  the  Union  a  new  power  on  the  Pacific  Coast 
would  be  the  natural  and  desirable  and  perhaps  inevitable  solution. 

But  neither  this  geographical  isolation,  nor  the  absence  of  Federal 
protection,  nor  the  political  sympathies  with  friends  and  kinsmen  availed 
to  prevent  the  development  of  a  national  sentiment  which  overcame  all 
opposition  and  placed  Oregon  thoroughly  in  line  with  her  loyal  sister 
States  in  demanding  the  maintenance  of  the  Federal  Union  of  the  States. 
This  national  sentiment,  which  was  inspired  rather  by  faith  in  the  future 
than  by  then  present  conditions,  was  finely  illustrated  in  your  eloquent 

•NOTE  BY  MR.  HIMES:  As  compiler  of  this  publication.  I  bee  to  take  issue 
with  the  above  statement,  which  is  similar  to  that  made  by  others 
lacked  opportunity  to  investigate  the  rratter.  My  reasons  for  dissenting  from 
Mr.  Judson's  statement  are  the  following:  From  information  secured  i 
from  pioneers  of  Oregon  during  the  past  twenty  years,  and  now  checked  up  for 
the  first  time,  I  find  that  out  of  7,444  pioneers  who  came  to  Oregon  before 
1859,  ninety-five  per  cent  of  whom  came  before  1854,  fifty-six  per  cent  were 
born  in  the  northern  states,  thirty-three  per  cent  in  the  southern  states,  and 
eleven  per  cent  in  twenty-one  foreign  ccuntries.  It  Is  nv  belief  that  the  above 
ratio  will  hold  good,  substantially,  in  respect  to  the  population  of  52,465  which 
Oregon  is  credited  with  by  the  U.  S.  census  of  1860. — George  H.  Himes,  Assistant 
Secretary  of  the  Oregon  Historical  Society. 

45 


Senator  Edward  D.  Baker,  who  fell  on  the  field  of  battle  in  one  of  the 
earliest  engagements  of  the  Civil  War.  All  honor,  then,  to  the  patriot- 
ism of  the  men  of  Oregon  who  stood  for  the  Union  despite  geographical 
isolation  and  sectional  sympathies,  when  the  Federal  power  could  not 
protect  them,  but  required  their  assistance,  when  all  their  resources 
were  needed  to  defend  their  own  State  from  the  horrors  of  Indian 
warfare. 

MODERN  OREGON. 

Of  the  history  of  Oregon  since  the  close  of  the  Civil  War,  during 
the  amazing  industrial  development  which  has  followed  the  opening  of 
direct  railroad  communications  with  the  country  beyond  the  mountains, 
others  are  more  competent  to  speak.  As  I  see  your  beautiful  cities, 
and  all  these  signs  of  a  prosperous  and  happy  people,  I  recall  the 
prophetic  words  of  our  great  Senator,  Benton,  spoken  more  than  sixty 
years  ago  in  St.  Louis: 

"I  say  the  man  is  alive,  full  grown  and  listening  to  what  I  say  (with- 
out believing  it,  perhaps) ,  who  will  yet  see  the  Asiatic  commerce  travers- 
ing the  north  Pacific  Ocean,  entering  the  Oregon  river,  climbing  the 
western  slope  of  the  Rocky  Mountains  from  its  gorges,  and  spreading 
its  fertilizing  streams  over  our  wide-extended  Union.  The  steamboats 
and  the  steam  car  have  not  yet  exhausted  all  their  wonders.  They  have 
not  yet  found  their  amplest  and  most  appropriate  theatres — the  tranquil 
surface  of  the  north  Pacific  Ocean;  and  the  vast  inclined  plains,  which 
spread  east  and  west  from  the  base  of  the  Rocky  Mountains.  The  magic 
boat  and  the  flying  car  are  not  yet  seen  upon  the  plains,  but  they  will 
be  seen  there,  and  St.  Louis  yet  to  find  herself  as  near  Canton  as  she 
is  now  to  London,  with  a  better  and  safer  route  by  land  and  sea  to 
China  and  Japan,  than  she  now  has  to  France  and  Great  Britain." 

The  great  statesman  whose  glowing  prophecies  have  been  so  signally 
verified  in  the  wonderful  development  of  this  State,  did  not  live  to  see 
Oregon  admitted  to  Statehood.  It  was  a  coincidence  that  we  cannot  but 
notice  that  this  last  survivor  of  the  great  group  of  statesmen  who  had 
debated  the  Oregon  question  in  the  '40's  passed  away  in  April,  1858, 
on  the  very  eve  of  the  admission  of  Oregon  to  the  Union. 

Oregon  is  the  mother  State  of  the  Oregon  territory,  as  Washington, 
Idaho,  and  parts  of  Wyoming  and  Montana,  since  admitted  to  the  Union, 
are  taken  in  whole  or  in  part  from  the  original  territory,  between  the 
great  divide  of  the  Rocky  Mountains  and  the  Pacific  Ocean,  which  was 
the  subject  of  the  joint  occupancy  and  the  boundary  settlement. 

Time  will  not  permit  me  to  dwell  upon  the  interesting  incidents  of 
the  fifty  years  of  Statehood.  You  have  had  trying  experience,  both  during 
and  since  the  Civil  War,  of  a  continuance  of  Indian  warfare,  which 
harassed  the  pioneers  of  the  territorial  period.  But  such  disturbances 
have  long  since  ended.  Under  the  liberal  grants  for  education  made 
by  the  Federal  Government,  the  maintenance  by  the  State  of  a  com- 
prehensive system  of  education,  with  elementary  schools,  a  State  Uni- 
versity and  Agricultural  College,  demonstrate  the  progressive  spirit  of 
your  citizens.  With  the  extension  of  your  railroad  facilities,  the  growth 
of  both  domestic  and  foreign  commerce,  with  the  prospectively  large 
increase  of  your  arable  lands,  through  the  reclamation  policy  of  the 
Government,  and  the  judicious  conservation  of  your  immense  natural 
resources,  who  can  predict  or  measure  the  prosperity  of  the  future? 

46 


It  is  not  merely  in  material  progress,  however,  that  Oregon  is  now 
engaging  the  attention  of  the  thoughtful  world.  In  a  recent  article  in 
one  of  our  reviews,  Oregon  is  called  by  one  of  your  own  people,  the 
political  experiment  station  of  the  Union.  History  has  been  said  to  be 
philosophy  teaching  by  examples.  What  people  is  better  qualified  to 
give  instructions  in  the  great  problem  of  self-government  than  the  people 
of  Oregon?  In  the  provisional  organization  of  1843,  your  pioneer 
ancestors  made  one  of  the  most  signal  illustrations  that  our  history 
affords  of  the  capacity  of  our  people  for  self-government.  The  descend- 
ants of  pioneer  ancestry,  trained  in  the  stirring  events  of  your  dramatic 
territorial  and  State  history  may  well  feel  that  they  can  safely  experi- 
ment in  the  solution  of  these  great  problems  involved  in  the  perpetua- 
tion of  the  government  of  the  people. 

I  have  called  attention  to  the  interesting  association  of  my  own  State 
of  Missouri  with  Oregon  in  the  early  stages  of  your  history.  Missouri 
may  claim  to  be  the  mother  of  Oregon,  in  that  it  extended  its  protecting 
guidance  during  the  trials  of  those  early  days.  Now  the  conditions 
are  reversed.  Missouri  is  following  the  example  of  Oregon  in  seeking 
to  remedy  the  evils  of  representative  and  party  government.  The  mother 
State  is  following  the  footsteps  of  the  daughter.  At  the  late  election 
Missouri  adopted  by  popular  vote  the  initiative  and  referendum,  which 
was  almost  a  copy  from  the  Oregon  Constitution,  and  one  of  the  most 
effective  arguments  used  with  our  people  for  the  adoption  of  this  amend- 
ment was  the  wise  discrimination  shown  in  the  exercise  of  this  power 
by  the  people  of  Oregon.* 

Missouri  also  followed  the  example  of  Oregon  in  adopting  by  its  last 
Legislature  an  act  regulating  the  party  nominating  machinery,  that  is, 
requiring  nominations  of  State  nnd  county  officers  to  be  made  by  primary 
elections  and  also  in  making  effective  the  popular  will  in  the  selection 
of  United  States  Senator.** 

This  is  not  the  occasion  to  discuss  the  details  of  these  measures,  and 
as  the  people  of  Missouri  have  followed  the  people  of  Oregon  in  their 
adoption,  I  will  not  assume  to  question  the  patriotic  purpose  of  their 
advocates.  All  candid  men  must  admit  the  errors  which,  in  the  growth 
of  commercialism,  absorbing  the  best  energies  of  our  people,  have 
developed  in  our  representative  system;  and  also  the  abuses  which  have 
grown  out  of  our  party  organizations.  Thoughtful  and  patriotic  men 
can  but  welcome  the  public-spirited  efforts  to  remedy  these  evils  and 
abuses.  But  in  seeking  an  effective  remedy,  we  should  not  forget  that 
representation  is  the  great  vitalizing  principle  of  popular  government. 
It  was  in  England,  our  mother  country,  that  this  principle  of  representa- 
tion was  first  successfully  developed  as  a  contribution  to  the  science  of 
government,  and  it  was  the  lack  of  this  principle  which  caused  the 

•The  Missouri  amendment  differs  from  that  of  Oregon  in  that  it  excludes 
from  the  operation  of  me  referendum  not  only  laws  "necessary  for  the  im- 
mediate preservation  of  the  public  peace,  health  and  safety."  hut  also  "laws 
making  appropriations  for  the  cur-ent  expenses  of  the  State  government,  for 
the  maintenance  of  State  institutions  and  the  support  of  public  schools."  The 
requirement  of  signatures  for  the  referendum  petition  not  only  calls  for  five 
per  cent  of  the  voters,  but  provides  that  they  must  be  in  at  least  two-thirds  of 
the  sixteen  Congressional  districts  of  the  State,  and  the  same  requirement  is 
made  in  the  case  of  the  initiative  petition,  that  is,  eight  per  cent  of  the  voters 
must  be  in  at  least  two-tnirds  of  the  Congressional  districts. 

••The  Missouri  law  limits  the  senatorial  primary  to  the  selection  of  the 
party  candidate  for  the  legislative  party  caucus  by  the  voters  of  the  party  ticket 
at  the  regular  election. 

47 


failure  of  the  republics  of  antiquity  In  the  opinion  of  the  founders  of 
our  nation,  representation  was  not  only  necessary  for  the  extension  of 
popular  government  over  an  extended  territory,  but  in  their  view  it  was 
ideally  the  most  perfect  form  of  government,  as  it  afforded  the  means 
whereby  the  intelligence  of  the  community,  the  fittest  men,  could  be 
selected  for  the  purpose  of  conducting  the  government.  The  situation 
of  this  State  affords  a  most  signal  example  of  the  necessity  of  the 
principle  of  representation  in  a  federated  government  over  a  wide  extended 
territory.  It  was  only  through  the  successful  application  of  this  principle 
of  representation  that  the  thirteen  States  of  1787,  bordering  on  the 
Atlantic  Ocean,  could  be  extended  over  this  great  continent,  so  that 
people  three  thousand  miles  apart  with  diverse  interests,  from  the 
Atlantic  to  the  Pacific,  can  be  united  in  a  Federal  Union.  If  representa- 
tive government  has  failed  to  meet  modern  conditions,  then  popular 
government  over  an  extended  territory  is  itself  a  failure. 

The  application  of  the  principle  of  representation  to  the  selection 
of  candidates  for  office  by  party  organizations,  has  developed  grave 
abuses,  which  are  sought  to  be  remedied  by  the  abolition  of  representa- 
tion and  the  substitution  of  direct  popular  vote  in  the  naming  of  such 
candidates.  Political  parties,  however  desirable,  or  even  necessary  in 
the  working  out  of  national  policies,  are  not  the  end.  but  only  the  means 
of  securing  the  ends  of  government ;  and  in  most  of  our  State  and  local 
elections,  where  no  national  policies  are  involved,  their  only  function 
is  to  provide  the  machinery  whereby  candidates  for  office  may  be  brought 
before  the  people.  In  the  absence  of  absorbing  national  issues  the 
decline  of  that  party  spirit,  the  dangers  whereof  Washington  so  solemnly 
warned  the  American  people,  is  inevitable;  and  the  increase  in  the 
number  of  our  citizens  who  insist  on  voting  for  candidates  upon  their 
personal  merits,  can  only  be  welcomed  as  assuring  better  conditions  in 
the  administration  of  the  government  for  the  people. 

While  any  reform  winch  tends  to  insure  the  effective  popular  control 
of  all  the  departments  of  government  is  desirable,  there  is  grave  doubt 
whether  this  desirable  result  can  be  effectively  reached  through  the 
abolition  of  representation  in  the  selection  of  candidates  for  office.  Apart 
from  the  necessary  expense  involved  in  the  prosecution  of  individual 
candidacy,  which  must  be  borne  either  by  the  candidate,  his  friends,  or 
the  State,  it  is  a  grave  question  whether  the  substitution  of  professed 
office-seekers  for  the  receptive  candidates,  which  were  possible  under 
the  representative  system,  would  tend  to  the  public  good,  (t  is  honorable 
to  seek  office,  but  it  may  often  happen  that  the  public  good  may  be 
best  promoted  by  having  the  oifice  seek  the  man,  and  not  the  man  the 
office.  The  trend  of  our  democratic  development  has  been  in  the  direc- 
tion of  increasing  the  number  of  elective  offices  in  our  State  and  municipal 
governments.  It  has  been  pointed  out  by  Mr.  Bryce,  that  most  thoughtful 
observer  of  American  institutions,  that  the  most  fruitful  sources  of 
the  caucus  and  the  boss  lay  in  our  frequent  elections  and  numerous 
elective  offices.  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  the  very  means  we  take 
in  popularizing  our  system  of  government  may  tend  to  defeat  an  effective 
popular  control.  Public  opinion  to  be  effective  must  be  concentrated. 
When  the  average  voter  is  confronted  with  a  ticket  with  names  for 
numerous  offices,  constitutional  amendments  and  other  questions,  he  is 
dependent,  in  the  nature  of  things,  upon  some  form  of  organized  effort 

48 


in  the  exercise  of  his  electoral  judgment.  In  this  connection,  however, 
I  cannot  but  commend  the  example  of  Oregon  in  providing  for  the 
publication  of  information  to  assist  the  voter  upon  the  questions  sub- 
mitted for  his  vote.  None  the  less,  it  is  true,  however,  that  the  most 
effective  popular  control  is  through  the  concentration  of  an  enlightened 
public  opinion  in  the  selection  of  its  representatives. 

Behind  all  these  considerations,  however,  lies  the  fundamental  truth 
that  no  form  of  popular  government,  can  run  itself,  and  the  effective 
and  permanent  cure  must  be  found  in  the  development  of  the  public 
spirit  which  is  willing  to  make  the  necessary  sacrifice  for  good  govern- 
ment. Upon  such  a  subject,  however,  and  in  such  a  presence  as  this, 
one  cannot  be  pessimistic,  for,  with  their  pioneer  ancestry  and  their 
dramatic  history,  no  people  can  be  more  competent  than  the  people  of 
Oregon  to  work  out  these  mighty  problems,  even  in  experimenting  in 
the  search  for  their  wisest  solution.  Whatever  inconveniences  may  attend 
the  frequent  exercise  of  thesa  features  of  popular  government,  this 
exercise  of  itself  involves  a  training  of  the  people  in  citizenship,  which 
will  bring  about  a  higher  level  of  popular  intelligence,  and  this  is  the 
final  indispensable  requisite  for  the  solution  of  all  political  problems. 

"Yet  doubt   not   through   the  ages  one   Increasing  purpose   runs, 

And  the  thoughts  of  men  are  widened  with   the  process  of  the  suns." 

The  thoughtful  world  is  now  watching  with  intense  interest  the 
struggle  for  representative  institutions,  which  is  going  on  in  lands  where 
hitherto  they  have  been  unknown.  The  simple  government  of  the  time 
of  the  pioneers  is  no  longer  adapted  to  the  complex  conditions  of  our 
modern  civilization.  The  national,  state,  and  municipal  governments  are 
now  compelled  to  deal  with  problems  growing  out  of  the  density  of 
population  and  the  accumulations  of  wealth  which  were  unknown  in 
the  simple  life  of  our  fathers.  The  highest  intelligence  and  devotion  to 
public  duty  are  demanded  to  deal  with  these  problems.  The  ideal  of 
human  government  under  these  modern  conditions  is  the  rule  of  the  people 
made  effective  through  administration  by  the  wisest  and  best  of  the 
people,  selected  by  the  people  as  their  representatives,  in  view  of  their 
fitness  for  their  respective  duties,  and  responsible  to  the  people  for 
the  performance  of  those  duties.  Oregon  in  its  history  has  given  not 
only  to  our  own  country  but  to  all  mankind  inspiring  lessons  of  heroism 
and  patriotism.  May  the  example  of  Oregon  hereafter  be  effective  in 
the  realization  of  the  loftiest  conceptions  of  representative  government, 
so  that  the  rule  of  the  people  may  be  secured  here  and  elsewhere  for 
ages  to  come. 


49 

Siff.  4 


RESPONSES  RECEIVED  TO  INVITATIONS. 


Theodore  Roosevelt,  President  of  the  United  States,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Charles  Warren  Fairbanks,  Vice-President  of  the  United  States, 
Washington,  D.  C. 

William  Howard  Taft,  President-elect  of  the  United  States,  Cincin- 
nati, Ohio. 

Luke  E.  Wright,  Secretary  of  War,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Charles  J.  Bonaparte,  Attorney-General,  Washington,  D.  C. 

George  L.  von  Meyer,   Postmaster-General,  Washington,   D.   C. 

Truman  H.   Newberry,   Secretary  of  the   Navy,   Washington,   D.   C. 

James  Rudolph  Garfield,  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  Washington,  D.  C. 

James  Wilson,  Secretary  of  Agriculture,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Oscar  S.  Straus,  Secretary  of  Commerce  and  Labor,  Washington,  D.  C. 

David  J.  Brewer,  Associate  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Oliver  W.  Holmes,  Associate  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Herbert  Putnam,  Librarian  of  Congress,  Washington,  D.   C. 

STATES. 

Colorado — John    F.    Shafroth,    Governor,    Denver. 
Connecticut — George   L.    Lilley,    Governor,    Hartford. 
Florida — Albert  W.  Gilchrist,   Governor,   Tallahassee. 
Georgia — Hoke  Smith,   Governor,   Atlanta. 
Hawaii — W.    F.    Frear,    Governor,    Honolulu. 
Idaho — J.   H.   Brady,   Governor,   Boise. 
Illinois — Charles   S.  Deneen,   Governor,  Springfield. 
Louisiana — Jared   Y.   Sanders,   Governor,   Baton   Rouge. 
Maine — Bert    M.    Fernald,    Governor,    Augusta. 
Maryland — Austin   L.  Crothers,   Governor,  Annapolis. 
Mississippi — Edmond   F.   Noel,   Governor,  Jackson. 
Nevada — Denver    S.    Dickerson,    Lieutenant    and    Acting    Governor, 
Carson   City. 

New   Jersey — John    Franklin    Fort,    Trenton. 
New   York — Charles   E.    Hughes,    Governor,    Albany. 
North    Carolia — W.   W.    Kitchin,    Governor,    Raleigh. 
Ohio — Judson    Harmon,    Governor,    Columbus. 
Pennsylvania — Edwin    S.    Stuart,    Governor,    Harrisburg. 
Porto   Rico — Regis  S.   Post,   Governor,   Porto   Rico. 
Tennessee — Malcolm  R.  Patterson,  Governor,  Nashville. 
Utah — William   Spry,   Governor,   Salt  Lake. 
Vermont — Aaron  H.  Grout,   Secretary,  Montpelier. 

MISCELLANEOUS. 

Bourne,  Jonathan,  Jr.,  U.  S.  Senator  from  Oregon,  Washington,  D.  C. 
Bryce,  Rt.  Hon.  James,  British  Minister,  Washington,  D.  C. 

50 


Ellis,  William  R.,  Representative  in  Congress  from  Oregon,  Wash- 
ington, D.  C. 

Gifford,  Wm.  L.  R.,  Librarian  St.  Louis  Mercantile  Library,  St. 
Louis,  Mo. 

Hale,  Edward  Everett,  Chaplain  U.   S.   Senate,   Washington,   D.  C. 

Hanford,   C.  H.,  U.   S.   District  Judge,   Seattle,   Washington,   D.   C. 

Kerr,  W.  J.,  President  Oregon  Agricultural  College,  Corvallis. 

Meeker,  Ezra,  Oregon  Trail  Marker,  Pioneer  Author  and  Traveller, 
Seattle,  Washington. 

Moody,  Z.  F.,  Ex-Governor  of  Oregon,  Pasadena,  Cal. 

Mowry,  William   A.,   Author   and   Lecturer,   Hyde   Park,   Mass. 

Packwood,  William  H.  Sr.,  Member  of  the  Constitutional  Convention, 
August-September,  1857,  Deputy  Postmaster,  Baker  City,  Oregon. 

Weir,    Allen,   Attorney-at-law,    Olympia,    Washington. 

Wadlin,  Horace  G.,  Librarian  Public  Library  of  Boston,  Boston,  Mass. 

HISTORICAL  SOCIETIES. 

Alabama — Department  of  Archives  and  History.  Thomas  H.  Owen, 
LL.  D.,  Director,  Montgomery. 

American  Historical  Association,  Waldo  G.  Leland,  Secretary,  Wash- 
ington, D.  C. 

Bangor,  Maine,  Historical  Society.  John  S.  Sewall,  Corresponding 
Secretary,  Bangor. 

Columbia  Historical  Society.  M.  I.  Weller,  Corresponding  Secretary, 
Washington,  D.  C. 

Connecticut  Historical  Society.     Samuel  Hart,  President,  Middletown. 

Indiana  Historical  Society.  Daniel  Wait  Howe,  President,  Indianapolis. 

Iowa  State  Historical  Society.  Benjamin  F.  Shambaugh,  Secretary 
and  Superintendent,  Iowa  City. 

Kansas  State  Historical  Society.  George  W.  Martin,  Secretary, 
Topeka. 

Missouri  Historical  Society,  Miss  Idress  Head,  Librarian,  St.  Louis. 

New  London  County  Historical  Society.  Miss  Elizabeth  Gordon, 
Secretary,  New  London,  Conn. 

Pennsylvania  Historical  Society.  John  W.  Jordan,  Librarian, 
Philadelphia. 

Rhode  Island  Historical  Society.  Clarence  S.  Brigham,  Librarian, 
Providence. 

Wisconsin  Archaeological  Society.  Charles  E.  Brown,  Secretary  and 
Curator,  Madison. 

Wisconsin  State  Historical  Society.  Reuben  G.  Thwaites,  Secretary 
and  Superintendent,  Madison. 


51 


LIST  OF  MEMBERS  OF  THE  TWENTY-FIFTH 

LEGISLATIVE    ASSEMBLY    OF    THE 

STATE  OF  OREGON. 


SENATE. 


Counties  embraced 

Dlst. 
No. 

Name 

Baker.  _.    .    

28 
9 
12 
16 
14 
8 
17 
5 
18 
22 
1« 
0 
7 
8 
24 
2 

1 
19 

18 

SO 
21 
11 
10 

Hart,  J.  N. 
Johnson,  A.  J. 
Hedges,  Joseph  B. 
Scholfleld.  W.  T. 
Bailey,  A.  A. 
Chase.  W.  C. 
Merryman,  George  H. 
Abraham,  Albert 
Bowerman,  Jay 
Parrish.  Chas.  W. 
Sinnott,  N.  J. 
Mulit,  L.  L. 
Norton,  H.  D. 
Bingham,  I.  H. 
Barrett,  W.  N. 
Miller,  M.  A. 
J  Kay,  T.  B. 
1  Smith,  J.  N. 
Cole,  W.  G. 
f  Albee,  H.  R. 
Beach.  S.  O. 
!  CofTey,  John  B. 
1  Kellaher,  Dan 
1  Nottingham,  C.  W. 
1  Selling,  Ben 
Smith,  C.  J. 
Oliver,  Turner 
Wood,  William  D. 
Oaldwell.  F.  H. 

Benton  and  Polk...  

Olackamas      

Olatsop  

Columbia,  Olackamas,  Multnomab  ..  . 

Coos  and  Curry  

Crook,  Klamatb,  Lake 

Douglas.  .  

Gilliam,  Sherman,  'Wheeler  

Grant,  Harney,  Malbeur 

Hood  River,  Wasco  

Jackson   . 

Josephine  

Lane...  

Lincoln,  Tillamook,  Washington,  Yamhlll  
Linn  

Marlon  

Morrow,  Umatilla.  Union  . 

Multnomab  

Umatilla  

Union,  Wallowa  

Washington 

Yambill  

52 


HOUSE  OF   REPRESENTATIVES. 


Counties  embraced 

Dlst. 
No. 

Name 

Baker       .  ..  .    . 

26 

McKlnney,  Henry  M. 

Benton  .    _.  . 

10 

Bonebrake,  P.  O. 

<  '  lar  kitnms 

14 

(  Campbell,  James  U. 
<  Dlmlck,  W.  A. 

Olackamas  and  Multnomab 

17 

I  Jones,  Linn  E. 
McArthur,  C.  N. 

Olatsop  

19 

J  Lelnenweber,  O.  A. 

Columbia  

20 

Oonyers,  E.  W. 

Coos                                .  _ 

5 

Bedllllon,  R.  E.  L. 

Coos  and  Curry            .      

« 

Muncy,  I.  N. 

Crook,  Grant,  Klamath,  Lake  

21 

t  Belknap,  H.  P. 

Douglas    . 

4 

1  Applegate,  E.  R. 

Douglas  and  Jackson          .               .    .         

9 

Buchanan,  J.  A. 

Gllllam,  Sherman,  Wheeler.      .       

28 

j  Jackson,  W.  F. 

Harney  and  Malheur           ...        ...  .. 

27 

Brooke,  W.  H. 

Hood  River,  Wasco               

20 

J  Carter,  J.  L. 

Jackson  

g 

j  Miller,  D.  H. 

Josephine                            .        ...... 

7 

Smith,  J.  O. 

Lane  

8 

(  Bean,  Louis  E. 
•<  Calkins.  Wlnsor  W. 

Lincoln  and  Polk  

12 

'  Eaton,  Allen  H. 
Jones,  Benjamin  P. 

Linn        ...                 ...  .  .    

j 

|  Brandon,  Thomas 
•s  Munkers,  I.  A. 

Marlon 

1 

Philpott,  J.  M. 
Hatteberg,  O.  L. 
Hughes.  8.  A. 
Llbby.  A.  C. 

Morrow  and  Umatllla 

22 

Patton,  Hal.  D. 
Reynolds,  Lloyd  T. 
Mahoney,  T.  J. 

Multnomah            ,,                  .....              , 

18 

Abbott,  James  D. 
Altman,  B.  C. 
Brady,  Fred  J. 
Bryant.  J.  O. 
Clemens,  W.  J. 
.  Couch,  K.  C. 

Polk 

11 

Davis,  L.  M. 
Farrell.  Robert  8. 
Jaeger,  E.  J. 
Mahone,  L.  D. 
McDonald,  Ohas.  J. 
Orton,  A.  W. 
Hawley,  O.  L. 

Tlllamook  and  Yamhlll  

14 

Beals,  A.  G. 

Umatllla  

28 

1  Mann,  L.  L. 

Union  

20 

Richardson.  Stephen  F. 

Union  and  Wallow*.               ..         .  .          

24 

Rusk,  John  P. 

Washington  

15 

(Greer.  R.  H. 
•{  Hlnes.  Charles 

Yam  hill  .. 

18 

(  Meek,  8.  A.  D. 
j  Bones.  J.  W. 

53 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  AT  LOS  ANGELES 

THE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below 


Form  L-9-15m-2,'36 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


